The History of the Crusades (vol. 3 of 3)

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The History of the Crusades (vol. 3 of 3)
Author: Michaud, Joseph Francois
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The History of the Crusades (vol. 3 of 3)" ***

produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE:

—Obvious print and punctuation errors were corrected.

THE

HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES

JOSEPH FRANCOIS MICHAUD.

_TRANSLATED BY W. ROBSON._

A New Edition,

WITH PREFACE AND SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER BY
HAMILTON W. MABIE.

_IN THREE VOLUMES._

VOL. III.

NEW YORK:

A. C. ARMSTRONG & SON,
714 BROADWAY.

CONTENTS TO VOL. III.

BOOK XV.—A.D. 1255-1270.

EIGHTH CRUSADE.

Christian cities of Palestine fortified by Louis
IX.—Quarrels among the Crusaders—Divisions
among the Saracens—Aibek, sultan of Egypt,
assassinated—Chegger-Adour, the sultana,
assassinated—The Moguls, or Tartars, capture
Bagdad—Koutouz elected sultan of Egypt—The
Moguls capture the principal cities of Syria—The
general terror inspired among the Mussulmans and
Christians—Apprehensions of Bela IV., king of
Hungary—Assassination of Koutouz—The Mamelukes of
Egypt—Bibars proclaimed sultan of Egypt—Declares
war against the Christians of Palestine—The
Mamelukes defeat and expel the Tartars from
Palestine—Constantinople recaptured by the Greeks,
and the Latins expelled—The Christians defeated by
the Mamelukes, and Palestine laid waste—Cæsarea,
Arsouf, and Sefed besieged and captured—Slaughter
of the Christians—Mohammedanism not a religion of
the sword—Charlemagne’s career—Capture of Jaffa by
the sultan of Egypt—Bohemond forms a treaty with
Bibars—Antioch captured and destroyed, and the
inhabitants slaughtered—Quarrels of the popes with the
sovereigns of Europe—Royal family of Swabia—Charles,
count of Anjou, crowned by the pope as king of
Sicily—Mainfroy—Conraddin disputes the crown of
Sicily—Louis IX. determines upon a fresh crusade to
the Holy Land—The illustrious personages who take the
cross in his support—Joinville declines to accompany
him—Abaga, khan of the Tartars, sends ambassadors to
Rome—Pope Clement IV. supports the new crusade—The
clergy oppose the levying of contributions—A council
held at Northampton for aiding the crusade—James king
of Arragon, and Edward prince of England, engage in the
crusade—Death of Clement IV.—The Crusaders arrive
at Tunis—Historical notice of Tunis—The Mohammedans
resist the Crusaders—Sickness and mortality among
the Crusaders—Death of the duke de Nevers—Illness
and fervent devotion of Louis—His death—Charles
of Anjou lands at Tunis, and takes the command of
the Crusaders—Returns to France with the bodies of
his father, wife, and brother—The virtue? and piety
of Louis IX.—Prince Edward of England arrives in
Palestine—Nazareth captured by the Crusaders—Prince
Edward returns to England—Thibault elected pope,
under the title of Gregory X.—He convokes the council
of Lyons for reviving a new crusade—Curious document
issued by Humbert de Romanis—Three pretenders to
the throne of Jerusalem—The continued victories of
Bibars—His death and character—Death of Gregory
X.—Revolt in Sicily—The Sicilian vespers—Kealaoun,
the sultan of Egypt, concludes a treaty with the
Christians of Ptolemaïs, and enters into treaties
with European princes—Fort of Margat captured
by the Mussulmans—Sieur Barthélemi becomes a
Mohammedan renegade—Tripoli captured and destroyed,
and the Christians slaughtered—Description of
Ptolemaïs—Chalil elected sultan of Egypt—The
Mussulman sect of Chages—Ptolemaïs captured
and destroyed by Chalil—Virgins of St. Clair
self-mutilated and destroyed—Death of William de
Clermont—Devoted heroism of the Templars—Capture
and destruction of Tyre, Berytus, Sidon, and all the
Christian cities along the coast of Palestine pp. 1-91.

BOOK XVI.—A.D. 1291-1396.

ATTEMPTED CRUSADES AGAINST THE TURKS.

Pope Nicholas IV. attempts to revive a fresh
crusade against the East—Sends missionaries to the
Tartars—Their contests with the Mussulmans revive
the hopes of the Christians—Argun, the Tartar
chief—Conquests of the Tartars—Cazan, the Mogul
prince, sends ambassadors to the Pope—Clement IV.
proclaims a crusade at the council of Vienna—Exploits
of the Hospitallers—Conquests and wealth of the
Templars—Accusations against them—Philip le Bel
of France takes the cross—His death—Philip le
Long—His death—Charles le Bel—His death—Raymond
Lulli preaches a fresh crusade—Philip of Valois
convokes an assembly at Paris for reviving a fresh
crusade—Renewed persecutions of the Christians
in Palestine—Brother Andrew of Antioch—Petrarch
an apostle of the holy war—Humbert II., dauphin
of Viennois, takes the cross—Hugh of Lusignan,
king of Cyprus—Political troubles of France—King
John taken prisoner at Poictiers—Engages in a
fresh crusade—Urban V. convokes a meeting at
Avignon—Peter de Lusignan, and Charles IV., emperor
of Germany, engage in the crusade—Alexandria
captured and burnt by the Crusaders—Barbary
invaded by the Christian forces—Tripoli captured
and burnt—Towns of Syria destroyed—Origin and
history of the Turks and the Ottoman empire—Their
conquests and invasion of Greece—Constantinople
menaced by the Turks—Its tottering state—The
emperors of Constantinople—Amurath, the Turkish
sultan—Bajazet—Two popes at the same time—Crusade
against the Turks determined on—Bajazet defeats
the Christian forces with great slaughter—Defeats
the Hungarians—Manuel, emperor of Constantinople,
visits France—Distracted state of Europe—History
and conquests of Tamerlane the Tartar—The Turks
defeated, and Syria overrun by the Tartars—Bajazet
raises the siege of Constantinople, and is defeated
by Tamerlane—Smyrna captured and destroyed—The
Ottomans reconquer the provinces overrun by
Tamerlane—The Greek Church submits to papal
authority—The barbarities of the Turks towards the
Christians—Pope Eugenius exhorts the Christian states
to another crusade—Cardinal Julian preaches in its
favour—Amurath enters into a treaty of peace with the
Crusaders, which being violated, they are defeated
with great slaughter—Ladislaus, king of Poland, and
Cardinal Julian, slain—Battle of Warna—Accession
of Mahomet II. to the Ottoman throne—His extensive
empire—Besieges Constantinople—Character of
Constantine Palæologus, the Greek emperor—His great
efforts in defence of his capital—Mahomet takes the
city by storm—Death of the emperor and destruction of
the Greek empire pp. 92-158.

BOOK XVII.—A.D. 1453-1481.

CRUSADES AGAINST THE TURKS.

Consternation among the Christian states at the
fall of Constantinople.—Philip, duke of Burgundy,
assembles his nobility at Lille—Curious festival
held by—Enthusiasm in favour of a crusade against
the Turks—Bishop Sylvius, John Capistran, Frederick
III. of Germany, and Pope Calixtus III. endeavour
to stir up the crusade—The Turks penetrate into
Hungary—Valour of Hunniades—They are defeated
at Belgrade—An alarming comet—Bishop Sylvius
elected Pope—Extended conquests of Mahomet II.—He
subdues Greece—The Pope convokes an assembly at
Mantua to urge on the crusade—His negociations
with Mahomet—Bosnia conquered—Pius II. engages
personally in the crusade, reaches Ancona, and
dies—Scanderberg defeats the Turks—Mahomet II.
swears to annihilate Christianity—The king of
Persia marches against the Turks, and his army
is destroyed—Cardinal Caraffa commands a fleet
of Crusaders—Satalia and Smyrna pillaged by the
Christian forces—Possessions of the Venetians and
Genoese captured by the Turks—Jacques Cœur—Cyprus
subjected to the Mussulmans—Taken possession of by
the Turks—Rhodes bravely defended by the knights
of St. John—The Turks invade Hungary and different
parts of Europe simultaneously—Defeated by Corvinus,
king of Hungary—Otranto captured by the Turks, and
afterwards abandoned—Pope Sextus IV. implores the
aid of Christian Europe against the Turks—Distracted
state of Italy—Death of Mahomet II., and divisions
in his family—Zizim disputes the Turkish empire with
Bajazet, and visits Europe—Charles VIII. of Naples,
engages in a crusade against the Turks—Alphonso II.
of Arragon—Italy invaded, and Rome possessed by the
French—Andrew Palæologus sells his claims to the
empire of the East—Death of Zizim—-Bajazet declares
war against Venice—Negotiates a treaty—Undertakes
an expedition against Portugal—Commercial ambition
of Venice—Diet at Augsburgh—Helian’s speech
against the Venetians—Council of Lateran convoked
by Julius II.—Bajazet II. dethroned, and succeeded
by Selim—Disorders of Christendom—Selim conquers
the king of Persia and the sultan of Egypt—Palestine
and all the rival powers of the East under the
domination of the Turks—Exertions of Leo X. for
reviving a crusade against them—Vida, the Italian
poet—Novagero’s eulogies on Leo X.—Cultivation
of Greek in Italy—Great preparations for the new
crusade—Eloquence of Sadoletus, and letters of Francis
I. in its favour—Sale of indulgences—Quarrels of
the Augustines and the Dominicans—Preaching of
Luther against indulgences—Soliman succeeds to the
Ottoman empire—Belgrade and Rhodes captured by the
Turks—The knights of St. John expelled from Rhodes,
and transferred to Malta—Francis I. made prisoner
at the battle of Pavia—The Hungarians defeated
by the Turks, and Louis II. slain—Clement VII.
imprisoned by Charles V.—Religious distractions of
Europe—Vienna besieged by the Turks—Hungary enters
into a treaty of peace—Policy of Henry VIII., of
Francis I., and of Charles V.—The Barbary states taken
under the protection of the Ottoman Porte—Preaching
of Luther—Heroic defence of Malta—Death of
Soliman, and accession of Selim—Capture of
Cyprus—The Turks signally defeated at the naval
battle of Lepanto—Universal rejoicings throughout
Christendom—General spread of civilization in
Europe—Brilliant age of Leo X.—The military power
of the Turks begins to decline—Defeated by Sobieski
before the walls of Vienna—Causes and history of
their decline—The Moors driven from Spain—State
of Christendom in Europe, and progress of the
Reformation—Ignatius Loyola—Pilgrimages to the Holy
Land—A spirit of resignation assumes the place of
enthusiasm for the crusades pp. 159-250.

BOOK XVIII.—A.D. 1571-1685.

Reflections on the state of Europe, on the various
classes of society, and on the progress of navigation,
industry, arts, and general knowledge during and after
the crusades pp. 251-348.

APPENDIX.

Pilgrimages—Itinerary from Bordeaux to
Jerusalem—Foulque of Anjou—William of
Malmesbury—Robert of Normandy—Charlemagne—Chronicle
of Tours—Letters of Bohemond, of Archbishop
Daimbert, and of the principal Crusaders—Council of
Naplouse—Bull of Pope Eugenius III. for the second
crusade—Letter from Saladin, detailing his capture
of Jerusalem and the battle of Tiberias—Sermon
made at Jerusalem by Mohammed Ben Zeky—Bull of
Gregory VIII. A.D. 1187—Council of Paris, held in
1188—Notes on the Greek fire—Memoir on the forest
of Saron, or the enchanted forest of Tasso—Ralph
Dicet—Ralph of Coggershall—Trick attempted by
Saladin—Imprisonment of Richard I.—Journey in
Wales by Archbishop Baldwin—Jourdain’s letter on
the “Assassins” of Syria—History of the Ismaëlians,
or “Assassins”—Treaty entered into by the leaders
of the Crusaders for the division of Constantinople
and the Greek empire—On the death of the marquis
of Montferrat—Fragment of Nicetas’s Chronicles on
the destruction of the statues of Constantinople
by the Crusaders—Jourdain’s letter on the crusade
of children in 1212—Letter of Pope Innocent III.
urging on the crusade to the Holy Land—Poetry of the
troubadours for the crusades—Funeral ceremonies of the
Prussians—Letter from Count d’Artois on the taking
of Damietta—Letter of St. Louis on his captivity and
deliverance—List of the great officers or knights who
followed St. Louis to Tunis—Instructions of St. Louis
addressed on his death-bed to Philip-le-Hardi—Edward
I., king of England, and his attempted
assassination—Opening of the troncs in France, and
expenditure of the receipts—Memoir of Leibnitz,
addressed to Louis XIV.—Capitulations between France
and the Ottoman Porte—Raynouard’s note on Hanmer’s
“Mysterium Baphometi Revelatum” pp. 349-500.

GENERAL INDEX p. 501.

HISTORY

THE CRUSADES.

BOOK XV.

EIGHTH CRUSADE.

A.D. 1255-1270.

LOUIS IX., during his sojourn in Palestine, had not only employed
himself in fortifying the Christian cities; he had neglected no means
of establishing that union and harmony among the Christians themselves,
which he felt would create their only security against the attacks
of the Mussulmans: unhappily for this people, whom he would have
preserved at the peril of his life, his counsels were not long in
being forgotten, and the spirit of discord soon displaced the generous
sentiments to which his example and discourses had given a momentary
life.

It may have been observed in the course of this history, that several
maritime nations had stores, counting-houses, and considerable
commercial establishments at Ptolemaïs, which had become the capital
of Palestine. Among these nations, Genoa and Venice occupied the
first rank: each of these colonies inhabited a separate quarter, and
had different laws, besides interests, which kept them at constant
variance; the only thing they possessed in common,[1] was the Church
of St. Sabbas, in which the Venetians and the Genoese assembled
together to celebrate the ceremonies of their religion.

This common possession had often been a subject of quarrel between
them; a short time after the departure of St. Louis, discord broke
out anew, and roused all the passions that the spirit of rivalry and
jealousy could give birth to between two nations which had so long
contended for the empire of the sea and pre-eminence in commerce.
Amidst this struggle, in which the very object of the contest ought
to have recalled sentiments of peace and charity to their hearts, the
Genoese and Venetians often came to blows in the city of Ptolemaïs, and
more than once, the sanctuary, which the two parties had fortified like
a place of war, resounded with the din of their sacrilegious battles.

Discord very soon crossed the seas, and carried fresh troubles into the
West. Genoa interested the Pisans in her cause, and sought allies and
auxiliaries even among the Greeks, at that time impatient to repossess
Constantinople. Venice, in order to avenge her injuries, courted the
alliance of Manfroi, who had been excommunicated by the head of the
Church. Troops were raised, fleets were armed, and the parties attacked
each other both by land and sea; and this war, which the sovereign
pontiff was unable to quell, lasted more than twenty years, sometimes
to the advantage of the Venetians, as frequently to that of the
Genoese; but always fatal to the Christian colonies of the East.

This spirit of discord likewise extended its baneful influence to
the rival orders of St. John and the Temple; and the blood of these
courageous defenders of the Holy Land flowed in torrents in cities of
which they had undertaken the defence; the Hospitallers and Templars
pursued and attacked each other with a fury that nothing could appease
or turn aside, both orders invoking the aid of the knights that
remained in the West. Thus the noblest families of Christendom were
dragged into these sanguinary quarrels, and it was no longer asked in
Europe whether the Franks had conquered the Saracens, but if victory
had been favourable to the knights of the Temple or to those of the
Hospital.

The brave Sergines, whom Louis IX. had at his departure left at
Ptolemaïs, and the wisest of the other defenders of the Holy Land,
had neither authority enough to reëstablish tranquillity, nor troops
enough to resist the attacks of the Mussulmans. The only hope of
safety which appeared to be left to the Christians of Palestine, arose
from the divisions which also troubled the empire of the Saracens;
every day new revolutions broke out among the Mamelukes; but, by a
singular contrast, feuds, that weakened the power of the Franks, often
seemed only to increase that of their enemies. If, from the feeble
kingdom of Jerusalem, we pass into Egypt, we there behold the strange
spectacle of a government founded by revolt, and strengthening itself
amidst political tempests. The Christian colonies, since the taking of
Jerusalem, by Saladin, had no longer a common centre or a common tie;
the kings of Jerusalem, in losing their capital, lost an authority
which served at least as a war-cry, by which to rally ardent spirits
around them. Nothing was preserved of royalty but the name, nothing was
gained from republicanism but its license. As to the Mamelukes, they
were less a nation than an army, in which they at first quarrelled for
a leader, and in which they afterwards obeyed him blindly. From the
bosom of each of their revolutions sprang a military despotism, armed
with all the passions that had given birth to it, and, what must have
redoubled the alarm of the Christians, this despotism breathed nothing
but war and conquest.

We have said, in the preceding book, that Aibek, after having espoused
the sultana Chegger-Eddour, had mounted the throne of Saladin; but it
was not long before his reign was disturbed by the rivalries of the
emirs. The death of Phares-Eddin Octhaï, one of the leaders opposed
to the new sultan, disconcerted the projects of the faction, but the
jealousy of a woman did that which neither faction nor license had been
able to effect. Chegger-Eddour could not pardon Aibek for having asked
the hand of a daughter of the prince of Mossoul, and the faithless
husband was assassinated in the bath by slaves. The sultana, after
having gratified her woman’s vengeance, called in the ambition of the
emirs and the crimes of policy to her aid.[2] She sent for the emir
Saif-Eddin, to ask his advice, and to offer him her hand and empire.
Upon being introduced into the palace, Saif-Eddin found the Sultana
seated, with the bleeding body of her husband at her feet: at this
spectacle, the emir was seized with horror, and the calmness which
the sultana displayed, together with the sight of the bloody throne,
upon which she proposed to him to take his seat with her, added to his
fright; Chegger-Eddour summoned two other emirs, who could not endure
her presence, but fled away, terrified at what they saw and heard. This
scene passed during the night. At break of day, the news of it was
spread throughout Cairo, and the indignation of the people and the army
was general and active: the mother of Aibek amply revenged the death of
her son. Chegger-Eddour, in her turn, perished by the hands of slaves,
and her body, which was cast into the castle ditch, might teach all
the ambitious who were contending for the empire, that revolutions,
likewise, sometimes have their justice.

Amidst the tumult, a son of Aibek, fifteen years of age, was raised to
the throne; but the approach of a war soon caused a new revolution to
break out, and precipitated the youth from his giddy eminence: great
events were ripening in Asia, and a storm was brewing in Persia, which
was soon to burst over both Syria and Egypt.[3]

The Moguls, under the command of Oulagon, had laid siege to Bagdad,
at a moment when the city was divided into several sects, all more
earnest in their conflicts with each other than in their preparations
to repulse a formidable enemy. The caliph, as well as his people, was
sunk deep in voluptuous effeminacy, and the pride created by the vain
adulation of the Mussulmans, made him neglect true and available means
of defence. The Tartars took the city by storm, and gave it up to all
the horrors of war. The last and thirty-seventh of the successors of
Abbas, dragged away like the vilest captive, lost his life in the
midst of such tumult and disorder, that history[4] is unable to say
whether he died of despair, or whether he fell beneath the sword of his
enemies.

This violence, committed upon the head of the Mussulman religion, with
the march of the Moguls towards Syria, threw the Mamelukes into the
greatest consternation. They then deemed it necessary to displace the
son of Aibek, and elect a leader able to guide them amidst the perils
that threatened them, and their choice fell upon Koutouz, the bravest
and most able of the emirs.

Whilst Egypt was earnestly engaged in preparations to resist the
Moguls, the Christians appeared to expect their deliverance from this
war against the Mussulmans; the khan of Tartary had promised the king
of Armenia to carry his conquests as far as the banks of the Nile; and
oriental chronicles relate that the Armenian troops were united with
those of the Moguls.[5] The latter, after having crossed the Euphrates,
took possession of Aleppo, Damascus, and the principal cities of Syria.
On all sides, the Mussulmans fled before the Tartars, and the disciples
of Christ were protected by the victorious hordes; from that time the
Christians only beheld liberators in these redoubtable conquerors. In
the churches, and even upon the tomb of Christ, prayers were put up
for the triumph of the Moguls, and in the excess of their joy, the
Christians of Palestine abandoned their general practice of imploring
aid from the powers of Europe.

In the mean time Europe itself entertained a very different idea of
this war; the progress of the Moguls created the greatest terror in
all the nations of the West; they not only dreaded the Mogul arms
on account of the Christian colonies of the East; they trembled
for themselves;[6] for whilst the hordes of Oulagon were ravaging
Syria, other armies of the same nation were desolating the banks of
the Dniester and the Danube. Pope Alexander, addressing the princes,
prelates, and all the faithful, exhorted them to unite against the
barbarians. Councils were assembled in France, England, Italy, and
Germany, to deliberate upon the dangers of Christendom; the head of the
Church ordered prayers to be offered up and processions to be made,
blasphemies to be punished, and luxury to be suppressed at the table
and in dress,—measures which might be conceived proper to mitigate
the anger of Heaven, but very insufficient to stop the invasion of the
Moguls.

The hordes, however, which ravaged Hungary and Poland were dispersed,
and terror again took possession of the Christians of the East, whose
hopes had been so sanguine. Oulagon, recalled into Persia by civil
wars, left his lieutenant, Ketboga, in Syria, with directions to follow
up his conquests. The Christians were still applauding the victories
of the Moguls, when a quarrel, provoked by some German Crusaders, all
at once changed the state of things, and made enemies of those who had
been considered as auxiliaries. Some Mussulman villages which paid
tribute to the Tartars, having been pillaged, Ketboga sent to demand
a reparation of the Christians, which they refused. In the course of
the dispute raised on this subject, the nephew of the Mogul commander
was killed. From that time the Tartar leader declared open war against
the Christians, ravaged the territory of Sidon, and menaced that of
Ptolemaïs. At the aspect of their desolated plains, all the hopes of
the Christians vanished; they had had no bounds to their hopes and
their joy, they had now none to their grief or their fears. The alarm
created in them by a barbarous people, made them forget that most of
their misfortunes came from Egypt, and as they had given over all idea
of succours from the West, many of them now placed all their confidence
in the arms of the Mamelukes.

A great portion of Palestine had already been invaded by the Moguls,
when the sultan of Cairo set out on his march to meet them at the head
of his army; he remained three days in the neighbourhood of Ptolemaïs,
where he renewed a truce with the Christians. Soon after, a battle was
fought in the plain of Tiberias; Ketboga lost his life in the middle
of the conflict, and the army of the Tartars, beaten and scattered,
abandoned Syria.

To whichever side victory might have inclined, the Christians had
nothing to hope from the conqueror; the Mussulmans could not pardon
them for having sought the support of the victorious Moguls, and having
taken advantage of the desolation of Syria, to insult the disciples of
Mahomet. The churches were demolished at Damascus; the Christians were
persecuted in all the Mussulman cities, and these persecutions were the
presage of a war in which fanaticism exercised all its furies. On all
sides complaints and menaces arose against the Franks of Palestine; the
cry of _war with the Christians_ resounded through all the provinces in
the power of the Mamelukes; the animosity was so great, that the sultan
of Cairo, who had just triumphed over the Tartars, was the victim to
his fidelity in observing the last truce concluded with the Franks.
Bibars, who had killed the last sultan of the family of Saladin,
took advantage of this effervescence of the public mind to endeavour
to raise a party against Koutouz, by affecting great hatred for the
Christians, and by reproaching the sultan with a criminal moderation
towards the enemies of Islamism.

When the fermentation had been worked up to the highest point, Bibars,
having assembled his accomplices, surprised the sultan whilst hunting,
struck him several mortal blows, then, all stained as he was with the
blood of his master, he hastened to the Mameluke army, at that time
collected at Sallhie; he presented himself to the atabek or lieutenant
of the prince, announcing the death of Koutouz. Upon being asked who
killed the sultan. “It was I,” answered he. “In that case,” said the
atabek, “reign in his place.”[7] Strange words, which characterize at a
single stroke the spirit of the Mamelukes, as well as of the government
they had founded! The army proclaimed Bibars sultan of Egypt, and the
ceremonies prepared at Cairo for the reception of the conqueror of the
Tartars, served to celebrate the coronation of his murderer.

This revolution gave the Mussulmans the sovereign most to be dreaded by
the Christians. Bibars was named _the pillar of the Mussulman religion
and the father of victories_; and he was destined to merit these titles
by completing the ruin of the Franks. He had scarcely mounted the
throne before he gave the signal for war.

The Christians of Palestine being totally without means of resisting
the Mameluke forces, sent deputies to the West to solicit prompt and
efficient succour. The sovereign pontiff appeared affected by the
account of the perils of the Holy Land, and exhorted the faithful to
take the cross; but the tone of his exhortations, and the motives that
he named in his circulars, only too plainly evinced his desire to see
Europe take up arms against other enemies than the Mussulmans. “The
Saracens,” said he, “know that it will be impossible for any Christian
prince to make a long abode in the East,[8] and that the Holy Land will
never have any but transient succour from distant countries.”

Alexander IV. was much more sincere and far more eloquent in his
manifestoes against the house of Swabia; the interest he took in the
contest he was carrying on in the kingdom of Naples could not be
diverted by the undertaking of a holy war. Clement IV., who succeeded
him, made some few demonstrations of zeal to engage the European
nations to take arms against the Mussulmans; but the policy of his
predecessors had left too many germs of discord and trouble in Italy,
to allow him to give much attention to the East. On one side, Germany,
still without an emperor, though with three pretenders to the empire,
could spare no warriors for the Holy Land. England was a prey to a
civil war, in which the barons wore a white cross as their badge of
union against the king, and in which priests exhorted them to the
fight, pointing to heaven as the reward of their bravery and their
rebellion. This strange crusade precluded all thoughts of one beyond
the seas. France was the only kingdom from which the prayers of the
Christians of Palestine were not repulsed; some French knights took the
cross, and chose Eudes, count of Nevers, son of the duke of Burgundy,
as their leader; and these were all the succours Europe could afford to
send to the East.

At the same time that the afflicting news arrived from the Holy Land,
an event was announced which would have plunged the whole West in
mourning, if the conquests of the Crusaders had then excited anything
like the interest to which they had given birth in former ages. We
have frequently had occasion to deplore the rapid decline of the Latin
empire of Constantinople; for a length of time, Baldwin had had no
means for supporting the imperial dignity, or paying his scanty troop
of soldiers, but the alms of Christendom, and some loans obtained from
Venice, for which he was obliged to give his own son as a hostage,
or, more properly, a pledge. In pressing moments of want, he sold the
relics, he tore the lead from the roofs of the churches, and the timber
of public edifices was used for heating the fires of the imperial
kitchens. Towers half-demolished, ramparts without defences, palaces
smoky and deserted, houses and whole streets abandoned, such was the
spectacle presented by the queen of eastern cities.

Baldwin had concluded a truce with Michael Palæologus. The facility
with which this truce was made ought to have inspired the Latins with
some suspicion; but the deplorable state of the Franks did not prevent
them from despising their enemies or dreaming of fresh conquests.
In hopes of pillage, and forgetful of the perfidious character of
the Greeks, a Venetian fleet bore such as remained of the defenders
of Byzantium in an expedition against Daphnusia, situated at the
embouchure of the Black Sea. The Greeks of Nice, informed by some
peasants from the shores of the Bosphorus, did not hesitate to take
advantage of the opportunity fortune thus presented. These peasants
pointed out to the general of Michael Palæologus, who was about to make
war in Epirus, an opening that had been made under the ramparts of
Constantinople, close to the Golden Gate, by which more troops might
be introduced than would be necessary for the conquest of the city.
Baldwin had none with him but children, old men, women, and traders;
among the latter of whom were the Genoese newly allied to the Greeks.
When the soldiers of Michael had penetrated into the city, they were
surprised to find no enemy to contend with; whilst they preserved
their ranks, and advanced with precaution, a troop of Comans, whom the
Greek emperor had in his pay, traversed the city, sword and fire in
hand. The small, terrified crowd of the Latins fled towards the port;
whilst the Greek inhabitants hastened to meet the conqueror, shouting,
“Long life to Michael Palæologus, emperor of the Romans!” Baldwin,
awakened by these cries and the tumult that drew near to his palace,
hastened to quit a city that no longer was his. The Venetian fleet,
returning from the expedition to Daphnusia, arrived in time to receive
the fugitive emperor and all that remained of the empire of the Franks
upon the Bosphorus. Thus the Latins were deprived of that city that it
had cost them such prodigies of valour to obtain; the Greeks reëntered
it without striking a blow, seconded only by the treachery of a few
peasants and the darkness of night. Baldwin II., after having reigned
in Byzantium during thirty-seven years, resumed the mendicant course
he had practised in his youth, and wandered from one court to another,
imploring the assistance of Christians. Pope Urban received him with a
mixture of compassion and contempt. In a letter addressed to Louis IX.,
the pontiff deplored the loss of Constantinople, and groaned bitterly
over the obscured glory of the Latin Church. Urban expressed a desire
that a crusade should be undertaken for the recovery of Byzantium; but
he found men’s minds but very little disposed to undertake such an
enterprise: the clergy of both England and France refused subsidies for
an expedition which they pronounced useless. The pope was obliged to
content himself with the submission and presents of Michael Palæologus,
who, still in dread in the bosom of his new conquest, promised, in
order to appease the Holy See, to recognise the Church of Rome, and to
succour the holy places.

In the mean time the situation of the Christians of Palestine became
every day more alarming, and more worthy of the compassion of the
nations and princes of the West. The new sultan of Cairo, after having
ravaged the country of the Franks, returned a second time, with a more
formidable army than the former. The Franks, alarmed at his progress,
sent to him to sue for peace; his only reply was to give up the church
of Nazareth to the flames; the Mussulmans ravaged all the country
situated between Naïn and Mount Thabor, and then encamped within sight
of Ptolemaïs.

The most distinguished of the Christian warriors had attempted an
expedition towards Tiberias; but this gallant troop, the last resource
of the Franks, had just been defeated and dispersed by the infidels;
fifty knights had arrived in Palestine with the duke of Nevers; but
what could such a feeble reinforcement do to arrest the progress of a
victorious army.

The country was laid waste, and the inhabitants of the cities kept
themselves closely shut up behind their ramparts, in the constant
apprehension of beholding the enemy under their walls. After
threatening Ptolemaïs, Bibars threw himself upon the city of Cæsarea;
the Christians, after a spirited resistance, abandoned the place, and
retired into the castle, which was surrounded by the waters of the
sea. This fortress, which appeared inaccessible, was only able to
resist the attacks of the Mussulmans a few days.[9] The city of Arsouf
was the next object of the Mussulman leader. The inhabitants defended
themselves with almost unexampled bravery; several times the machines
of the besiegers and the heaps of wood which they raised to the level
of the walls, were consigned to the flames. After having fought at the
foot of the ramparts, the besieged and the besiegers dug out the earth
beneath the walls of the city, and sought each other, to fight in the
mines and subterranean passages; nothing could relax the ardour of the
Christians or the impatient activity of Bibars. Religious fanaticism
animated the courage of the Mamelukes; the imauns and doctors of the
law flocked to the siege of Arsouf, to be present at the triumph of
Islamism: at length the sultan planted the standard of the prophet upon
the towers of the city, and the Mussulmans were called to prayers in
the churches at once converted into mosques. The Mamelukes massacred a
great part of the inhabitants; the remainder were condemned to slavery.
Bibars distributed the captives among the leaders of his army; he then
ordered the destruction of the city, and the Christian prisoners were
compelled to demolish their own dwellings. The conquered territory
was divided and shared among the principal emirs, according to an
order of the sultan, which the Arabian chronicles have preserved as
an historical monument. This liberality towards the conquerors of the
Christians, appeared to the Mussulmans worthy of the greatest praise,
and one of the historians of Bibars exclaims, in his enthusiasm,
“That so noble an action was written in the book of God, before being
inscribed upon the book of the life of the sultan.”

Such encouragements bestowed upon the emirs, announced that Bibars
still stood in need of their valour to accomplish other designs. The
sultan returned into Egypt, to make fresh preparations and recruit
his army. During his sojourn at Cairo, he received ambassadors from
several kings of the Franks, from Alphonso, king of Arragon, the king
of Armenia, and some other princes of Palestine. All these ambassadors
demanded peace for the Christians; but their pressing solicitations
only strengthened the sultan in his project of continuing the war; the
more earnest their entreaties, the greater reason he had to believe
they had nothing else to oppose to him. He answered the envoys of the
count of Jaffa: “The time is come in which we will endure no more
injuries; when a cottage shall be taken from us, we will take a castle;
when you shall seize one of our labourers, we will consign a thousand
of your warriors to chains.”

Bibars did not delay putting his threats into execution; he returned
to Palestine, and made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, to implore the
protection of Mahomet for his arms. His army immediately received the
signal for war, and ravaged the territory of Tripoli. If some Oriental
chronicles may be believed, the project of Bibars then was to attack
Ptolemaïs; and in so great an enterprise, he did not disdain the
assistance of treachery. The prince of Tyre, says Ibn-Ferat, united
with the Genoese, was to attack Ptolemaïs with a numerous fleet on the
sea side, whilst the Mamelukes attacked it by land. Bibars in fact
presented himself before Ptolemaïs, but his new auxiliaries no doubt
repented of the promises they had made him; and did not second his
designs. The sultan retired filled with fury, and threatened to avenge
himself upon all the Christians whom war should place in his power.

He first went to discharge his anger upon the fortress of Sefed, which
was situated in lower Galilee, fifteen leagues from Ptolemaïs. This
fortress had to defend itself against all the forces that the sultan
had gathered together for his great enterprise. When the siege had
begun, Bibars neglected no means of forcing the garrison to surrender;
he was constantly at the head of his troops, and in one conflict,
his whole army burst into a loud cry to warn him of a danger that
threatened him. To inflame the ardour of the Mamelukes, he caused
robes of honour and purses of money to be distributed on the field of
battle; the great cadi of Damascus had come to the siege to animate the
combatants by his presence; and the promises he addressed, in the name
of the prophet, to all the Mussulman soldiers, added greatly to their
warlike enthusiasm.

The Christians, however, defended themselves valiantly. This resistance
at first astonished their enemies, and soon produced discouragement;
in vain the sultan endeavoured to reanimate his soldiers, in vain he
ordered that all who fled should be beaten back with clubs, and placed
several emirs in chains for deserting their posts; neither the dread
of chastisements, nor the hopes of reward, could revive the courage of
the Mussulmans. Bibars would have been obliged to raise the siege, if
discord had not come to his assistance. He himself took great pains
to give birth to it among the Christians; in the frequent messages
sent to the garrison, perfidious promises and well-directed threats
sowed the seeds of suspicion and mistrust. At length the divisions
burst forth; some were anxious that they should surrender, others that
they should hold out to death: from that moment the Mussulmans met
with a less obstinate resistance, and renewed their own attacks with
greater ardour; whilst the Christians accused each other of treacherous
proceedings or intentions, the war-machines made the walls totter,
and the Mamelukes, after several assaults, were upon the point of
opening themselves a road into the place. At length, one Friday (we
quote an Arabian chronicle), the cadi of Damascus was praying for
the combatants, when the Franks were heard to cry from the top of
their half-dismantled towers, “O Mussulmans, spare us, spare us!” The
besieged had laid down their arms, and fought no longer—the gates were
immediately opened, and the standard of the Mussulmans floated over the
walls of Sefed.

A capitulation granted the Christians permission to retire wherever
they wished, upon condition that they should take away with them
nothing but their clothes. Bibars, when seeing them defile before him,
sought for a pretext to detain them in his power. Some were, by his
orders, arrested and accused of carrying away treasures and arms; and
the command was instantly issued to stop all. They were reproached with
having violated the treaty, and were threatened with death if they
did not embrace Islamism. They were loaded with chains and crowded
together in a mass upon a hill, where they expected nothing but death.
A commander of the Temple and two Cordeliers exhorted their companions
in misfortune to die like Christian heroes. All those warriors, whom
discord had divided, now reunited in one common evil, had only one
feeling and one thought;[10] they wept as they embraced each other,
they encouraged each other to die becomingly; they passed the night
in confessing their sins towards God, and in deploring their errors
and their differences. On the morrow, two only of these captives were
set at liberty; one was a brother Hospitaller, whom Bibars sent to
Ptolemaïs, to announce to the Christians the taking of Sefed; the
other was a Templar, who abandoned the faith of Christ, and attached
himself to the fortunes of the sultan; all the others, to the number of
six hundred, fell beneath the sword of the Mamelukes. This barbarity,
committed in the name of the Mussulman religion, appears the more
revolting, from the Franks never having given an example for it, and
that amidst the furies of war, they were never known to require the
conversion of infidels, sword in hand.[11]

It is impossible to describe the despair and consternation of the
Christians of Palestine, when they learnt the tragical end of the
defenders of Sefed. Their superstitious grief invented or blindly
received the most marvellous accounts, which the Western chroniclers
have not disdained to repeat; it was said that a celestial light shone
every night over the bodies of the Christian warriors that remained
unburied.[12] It was added that the sultan, annoyed by this prodigy,
which was every day renewed before his eyes, gave orders that the
martyrs of the Christian faith should be buried, and that around their
place of sepulture high walls should be built, in order that nobody
might witness the miracles operated in favour of the victims he had
immolated to his vengeance.

After the taking of Sefed, Bibars returned into Egypt, and the Franks
hoped for a few days of repose and safety; but the indefatigable sultan
never gave his enemies much time to rejoice at his absence. He only
remained in Egypt till he had recruited his army with fresh troops,
and soon brought back additional desolation to the states of the
Christians. In this campaign, Armenia was the point to which his anger
and the power of his arms were directed; he reproached the Armenian
monarch with forbidding Egyptian merchants to enter his dominions, and
could not pardon him for preventing his own subjects from obtaining
merchandise from Egypt. These differences were quickly settled on
the field of battle; one of the sons of the king of Armenia lost his
liberty, and the other his life: the army of Bibars returned loaded
with booty, and followed by an innumerable multitude of captives.

As, after each of his victories, the sultan presented himself before
Ptolemaïs, the capital of the Christian states, he did not fail on
his return from this last expedition, to exhibit before the walls of
this city the spoils of the people of Armenia, together with his own
machines of war; but the moment was not yet arrived in which such a
great undertaking as the capture of Ptolemaïs could be attempted. After
terrifying the inhabitants by his appearance, he suddenly departed,
for the purpose of surprising Jaffa. This city, the fortifications of
which had cost Louis IX. a considerable sum,[13] after a very slight
resistance, fell into the hands of Bibars, who caused all the walls
to be levelled with the ground. During this excursion, the sultan of
Cairo obtained possession of the castle of Carac and several other
forts, and then marched towards Tripoli. Bohemond having sent to demand
of him what the purpose of his coming was: “I am come,” replied he,
“to gather in your harvests; in my next campaign I will besiege your
capital.” Nevertheless, he concluded a truce with Tripoli, in the midst
of these hostilities; foreseeing that a treaty of peace would serve as
a veil for the project of another war, and that he should soon find an
opportunity of violating the truce with advantage.

The author of the life of Bibars, who was sent to Bohemond, count of
Tripoli and prince of Antioch, says that the sultan was in the train
of the ambassador, in the character of a herald-at-arms. His project
was to examine the fortifications and the means of defence of the city
of Tripoli. In drawing up the treaty, the Mussulman deputies only gave
Bohemond the title of count, whilst he claimed that of prince; the
discussion becoming warm, the envoys of Bibars naturally turned their
eyes towards their master, who made them a sign to yield.[14] On his
return to his army, the sultan laughed heartily with his emirs at this
adventure, saying, “The time is come in which God will curse the prince
and the count.”

By this, Bibars alluded to his project of conquering and ruining the
principality of Antioch. The Egyptian army received orders to march
towards the banks of the Orontes; and but very few days had passed away
before this same army was encamped under the walls of Antioch, badly
defended by its patriarch, and abandoned by most of its inhabitants.
Historians say very little of this siege, in which the Christians made
but a feeble resistance, and appeared more frequently as suppliants
than as warriors: their submission, their tears, their prayers,
however, made no impression upon a conqueror whose sole policy was the
destruction of the Christian cities.

As the Mussulmans entered Antioch without a capitulation, they gave
themselves up to all the excesses of license and victory. In a letter
which Bibars addressed to the count of Tripoli, the barbarous conqueror
takes a pleasure in describing the desolation of the subdued city, and
all the evils which his fury had caused the Christians to undergo.[15]
“Death,” says he, “came among the besieged from all sides and by all
roads: we killed all that thou hadst appointed to guard the city or
defend its approaches. If thou hadst seen thy knights trampled under
the feet of the horses, thy provinces given up to pillage, thy riches
distributed by measures-full, the wives of thy subjects put to public
sale; if thou hadst seen the pulpits and crosses overturned, the leaves
of the Gospel torn and cast to the winds, and the sepulchres of thy
patriarchs profaned; if thou hadst seen thy enemies, the Mussulmans,
trampling upon the tabernacle, and immolating in the sanctuary, monk,
priest, and deacon; in short, if thou hadst seen thy palaces given up
to the flames, the dead devoured by the fire of this world, the Church
of St. Paul and that of St. Peter completely and entirely destroyed,
certes, thou wouldst have cried out: _Would to Heaven that I were
become dust!_”

Bibars distributed the booty among his soldiers, the Mamelukes
reserving as their portion, the women, girls, and children. At that
time, says an Arabian chronicle, “_there was not the slave of a slave
that was not the master of a slave_.” A little boy was worth twelve
dirhems, a little girl, five dirhems. In a single day the city of
Antioch lost all its inhabitants, and a conflagration, lighted by order
of Bibars, completed the work of the barbarians. Most historians agree
in saying that seventeen thousand Christians were slaughtered, and a
hundred thousand dragged away into slavery.

When we recall to our minds the first siege of this city by the
Crusaders, and the labours and the exploits of Bohemond, Godfrey, and
Tancred, who founded the principality of Antioch, we are afflicted
at beholding the end of all that which the glory of conquerors had
produced. When, on the other side, we see a numerous population,
inclosed within ramparts, making but a feeble defence against an enemy,
and allowing themselves to be slaughtered without resistance, we cannot
help asking what can have become of the posterity of so many brave
warriors as had defended Antioch, during almost two centuries, against
all the Mussulman powers.

Complaints were made among the Christians against William, the
patriarch, whom they accused of having at least favoured the invasion
and conquest of the Mussulmans, by a weak pusillanimity. Without
offering an opinion upon the accusation, we content ourselves with
saying, that the timid prelate did not long enjoy the fruit of his
base conduct; for the Mamelukes, after having permitted him to retire
to Cosseïr, with all his treasures, dragged him from his retreat by
violence; and the faithless pastor, despoiled of his wealth, and
plunged in ignominy, underwent at last a much more cruel death than
he might have expected amidst his flock, and upon the ramparts of a
Christian city.

After the taking of Antioch, the Christians had nothing left to
arrest the progress of the Mussulmans, but the cities of Tripoli and
Ptolemaïs. Bibars was impatient to attack these last bulwarks of the
Franks; but he did not dare to put trust in his fortune, and aim the
last fatal blow at that power before which the Mussulman nations so
lately trembled. The sultan of Cairo could not forget that the dangers
of the Christians had often roused the whole West, and this thought
alone was sufficient to keep him in inaction and dread. Thus the sad
remains of the Christian colonies of the East, were still protected by
the warlike reputation of the nations of Europe, and by the remembrance
of the wonders of the early crusades.

Fame had not failed to carry the news of so many disasters across the
seas. The archbishop of Tyre, the grand masters of the Temple and
the Hospital, passed over into the West, to repeat the groans of the
Christian cities of Syria; but on their arrival, Europe seemed but
little disposed to give ear to their complaints. In vain a crusade
was preached in Germany, Poland, and the more remote countries of
the North; the inhabitants of northern Europe evinced nothing but
indifference for events that were passing at such a distance from them.
The king of Bohemia, the marquis of Brandenburg, and some other lords
that had taken the cross, seemed in no hurry to perform their oath. No
army set forward on its march; everything was reduced to preachings and
vain preparations.

The misfortunes of the Holy Land were deeply deplored in the kingdom of
France; in a _sirvente_,[16] composed on this subject, a contemporary
troubadour appears to reproach Providence with the defeats of the
Christians of Palestine, and in his poetical delirium, abandons
himself to an impious despair:—“Sadness and grief,” cried he, “have
taken possession of my soul to such a degree, that little is wanting
to bring me to instant death; for the cross is disgraced,—that cross
which we have taken in honour of him who died upon the cross. Neither
cross nor faith protects us longer, or guides us against the cruel
Turks,—whom God curse! But it appears, as far as man can judge, that
it is God’s will to support them for our destruction. And never believe
that the enemy will stop in his career after such success; on the
contrary, he has sworn and publicly announced that not a single man who
believes in Jesus Christ shall be left alive in Syria; that the temple
even of the holy Mary will be converted into a mosque. Since the son
of Mary, whom this affront ought to afflict, wills it to be so, _since
this pleases him, does it follow that it should please us likewise_?

“He is then mad who seeks a quarrel with the Saracens, when Jesus
Christ opposes them in nothing, as they have obtained victories,
and are gaining them still (which grieves me) over the Franks, the
Armenians, and the Persians. Every day we are conquered; for he
sleeps,—that God that was accustomed to be so watchful:[17] Mahomet
acts with all his power, and the fierce Bibars seconds him.”

We cannot believe that these exceedingly remarkable words expressed the
feelings of the faithful; but at a time when poets ventured to speak in
this manner, we may well suppose that men’s minds were not favourable
to a crusade. The troubadour we have quoted does not advise the making
of any war against the Saracens, and inveighs bitterly against the
pope, who sold _God and indulgences_ to arm the French against the
house of Swabia. In fact, the dissensions raised by the disputed
succession of the kingdom of Naples and Sicily, then occupied the
entire attention of the Holy See, and France was not quite free from
party spirit on the occasion.

Not satisfied with launching excommunications and ecclesiastical
thunders against Frederick and his family, the sovereign pontiffs
wished to add the force of arms to the authority conferred upon them
by the Church, and the right of conquest to that which they thought
they possessed over a kingdom so near to their own capital. As they had
no experience in war, and their lieutenants were equally deficient in
capacity and courage, their armies were defeated. The court of Rome,
thus conquered in the field of battle, was compelled to acknowledge the
ascendancy of victory, and in this profane struggle lost some of that
spiritual power which alone rendered it formidable.

With the exception of Mainfroy, a natural son of Frederick, and
Conradin, his grandson, the family of Swabia was extinct. Mainfroy,
who possessed both the abilities and courage of his father, had
recently elevated the German cause in Italy, and braved both the
arms and the power of the pontiffs. The court of Rome, upon finding
it could not retain the kingdom of Sicily for itself, offered it to
any one who would undertake the conquest of it. The crown to which
Mainfroy pretended was first offered to Richard of Cornwall, and upon
his prudent refusal, to Edmund, younger son of the king of England;
but the English parliament would not grant the subsidies necessary
for so great an undertaking. It was then offered to Louis IX. for his
brother, the count of Anjou; and although the scruples of the pious
monarch for a moment checked the projects of Pope Urban, Clement IV.,
on his accession, used fresh persuasions, and Louis at length suffered
himself to be overcome by the prayers of Charles; at the same time
entertaining a secret hope that the conquest of Sicily would some day
prove instrumental to the defence of the Holy Land.

Charles, after being crowned by the pope in the church of St. John
of the Lateran, entered the kingdom of Naples at the head of a
considerable force, preceded by the fulminations of the court of
Rome. The soldiers of Charles wore a cross, and fought in the name of
the Church; priests exhorted the combatants, and promised them the
protection of Heaven. Mainfroy succumbed in this, miscalled, holy war,
and lost both his life and his crown at the battle of Cosenza.

The pope being delivered from the cares of this political crusade,
turned his attention to the holy one beyond the seas; his legates
solicited various princes, some to take the cross, others to accomplish
their vows. Clement did not neglect to press Michael Palæologus to
prove the sincerity of his promises. Charles, who was the acknowledged
vassal of the pope, and who owed his kingdom to him, received many
messages, representing the dangers of the Holy Land, and reminding him
of what he owed to Jesus Christ, who was outraged by the victories of
the Mussulmans. The new king of Sicily contented himself with sending
an embassy to the sultan of Cairo, and with commending the unfortunate
inhabitants of Palestine to the mercy of Bibars. The sultan replied to
Charles, that he did not reject his intercessions; but the Christians
were destroying themselves with their own hands; that no one among
them had the power to enforce the observance of treaties, _and that
the most contemptible of them were constantly undoing that which the
greatest had done_. Bibars, in his turn, sent ambassadors to Charles,
less for the purpose of following up any negotiations, than to obtain
information upon the state and views of Christendom.[18]

Young Conradin, who was preparing to dispute the crown of Sicily
with Charles of Anjou, in order to avail himself of every means of
supporting his claim, sent deputies to the sultan of Cairo, in the
character of king of Jerusalem, conjuring him to protect his rights
against his rival. Bibars, in his reply, pretended to endeavour to
console Conradin, but, doubtless, received with joy these proofs of the
divisions that existed among the princes of Europe.

In the state in which Europe then was, one monarch alone took serious
interest in the fate of the Christian colonies of Asia. The remembrance
of a land in which he had so long dwelt, and the hope of avenging the
honour of the French arms in Egypt,[19] once more directed the thoughts
of Louis IX. to a new crusade. He however concealed his purpose, and
this great project, says one of his historians,[20] was formed, so to
say, between God and himself. Louis consulted the pope, who hesitated
to answer him, reflecting upon the dangers that his absence might bring
upon France, and even upon Europe. The first letter of Clement[21]
aimed at diverting the French monarch from so perilous an enterprise;
but, upon being consulted again, the sovereign pontiff showed none of
the same scruples, and declared it to be his duty to encourage Louis in
his design, as he was persuaded, he said, that this design came from
God.

The purpose, however, of this negotiation remained still buried
in profound mystery. Louis, no doubt, was fearful of prematurely
announcing his designs, lest reflection might weaken the enthusiasm
of which he must stand in so much need, or that a powerful opposition
to the undertaking of a crusade might be formed in both his court and
his kingdom; he thought that, by announcing his project unexpectedly,
at the moment of its being ripe for execution, he should affect men’s
minds more forcibly, and induce them more easily to follow his example.
An assembly of the barons, nobles, and prelates of the kingdom was
solemnly convoked at Paris towards the middle of Lent. The faithful
Joinville was not forgotten in this convocation; the seneschal foresaw,
he says in his Memoirs, that Louis was about to take the cross, and
the cause of his having this presentiment was, that in a dream he had
seen the king of France clothed in a chasuble of a bright red colour,
made of Rheims serge, which signified the cross. His almoner, when
explaining this dream to him, added, that the chasuble being of Rheims
serge, denoted that the crusade would be but a trifling or small
exploit.

On the twenty-third day of March, the great parliament of the kingdom
being assembled in a hall of the Louvre, the king entered, bearing in
his hand the crown of thorns of Christ. At sight of this, the whole
assembly became aware of the monarch’s intentions. Louis, in a speech
delivered with great animation, described the misfortunes of the Holy
Land, and proclaimed that he was resolved to go and succour it; he then
exhorted all who heard him to take the cross. When he ceased to speak,
a sad but a profound silence expressed at once the surprise and grief
of the barons and prelates, with the respect that all entertained for
the will of the holy monarch.

Cardinal de St. Cecilia, the pope’s legate, spoke after him, and in a
pathetic exhortation, called upon the French warriors to take arms.
Louis received the cross from the hands of the cardinal, and his
example was followed by three of his sons. Among these princes, the
assembly was affected at beholding John, count of Nevers, who was born
at Damietta amidst the calamities of the preceding crusade. At the
same time the legate received the oath of John, count of Brittany, of
Alphonso de Brienne, count of Eu, of Marguerite, the ancient countess
of Flanders, and of a great number of prelates, nobles, and knights.

The determination of St. Louis, of which a sad presentiment had been
entertained, spread deep regret throughout his kingdom; his people
could not behold without sorrow the departure of a prince whose
presence alone preserved peace, and maintained order and justice
everywhere. The health of the king was very much weakened, and there
was great reason to fear that he would not be able to support the
dangers and fatigues of a crusade; he took his sons with him; which
circumstance added greatly to the public grief. The disasters of the
first crusade were still fresh in the memory of his subjects, and
whilst they thought of the captivity of the whole of the royal family,
they dreaded greater misfortunes in the future. Joinville does not fear
to say, “that they who had advised the king to undertake this voyage
beyond the seas, had sinned mortally.”

Notwithstanding the general regret, there were neither complaints nor
murmurs against the king; the spirit of resignation, which was one of
the virtues of the monarch, appeared to have passed into the minds of
all his subjects, and, to employ the very expressions of the pope’s
bull, “the French people saw in the devotion of their king nothing but
a noble and painful sacrifice to the cause of the Christians, to that
cause for which God had not spared his only Son.”

The greater that was the affection for the king, the greater was the
general grief; but the zeal to partake his perils more than kept pace
with these.[22] Louis alone thought of delivering the tomb of Christ
and the Christian colonies; the warlike nobility of the kingdom only
thought of following their king in an expedition which was already
looked upon as unfortunate.

Among those who took the cross after the assembly of the Louvre,
history names Thibault, king of Navarre; Henry, count of Champagne, and
his brother, the count d’Artois, son of Robert, killed at Mansourah;
the counts of Flanders, de la Marche, St. Pol, and Soissons; the
seigneurs de Montmorency, de Nemours, de Pienne, &c. The sieur de
Joinville was warmly pressed to take the cross, but he resisted all
the persuasions that could be made to him, alleging the vast injuries
sustained by his vassals during the last expedition. The good seneschal
also was not forgetful of the predictions of his almoner; he earnestly
wished to accompany the king, whom he loved sincerely; but he was not
yet recovered from the terrors he had experienced in Egypt, and no
earthly motive could induce him to revisit the land of the Saracens.

The determination of the king of France created a lively sensation
throughout Europe, and revived in men’s minds the little that remained
of the old enthusiasm for the crusades. As he was the chief of the
enterprise, most of the warriors were ambitious of fighting under
his immediate banners; the confidence entertained for his wisdom and
virtues, in some sort fortified minds that dreaded distant expeditions,
and restored hopes to the Christian nations, that they appeared to
have forgotten. The remembrance, even, of the misfortunes of the first
voyage added to the security of the future, and created a belief in
many that the triumph of the Christian armies would at length be the
reward of past labours and calamities, and the fruit of a salutary
experience.

Clement IV. wrote to the king of Armenia to console him for the evils
he had suffered by the invasion of the Mamelukes, and to announce to
him that the Christians of the East were about to receive powerful
succours. Abaga, khan of the Tartars, who was then prosecuting a war
against the Turks of Asia Minor, sent ambassadors to the court of Rome,
and to several princes of the West, proposing to attack the Mamelukes
in concert with the Franks, and drive them from Syria and Egypt. The
pope received the Mogul ambassadors with great solemnity; he told them
that an army, led by a powerful monarch, was about to embark for the
East, that the hour fatal to the Mussulmans was come, and that God
would bless his nation, and all the allies of his nation.

Louis, constantly occupied by his expedition, fixed the period of his
departure for 1270; so that three long years must pass away before the
assistance promised by the sovereign pontiff could arrive in the East.
Vessels to transport the Crusaders were demanded of the republics of
Genoa and Venice: the Venetians at first refused; but upon learning
that applications were being made to the Genoese, they sent ambassadors
to offer a fleet. After protracted negotiations, in which Venice
evinced more jealousy of the Genoese than zeal for the crusade, she
again refused to concur in the embarkation of the Christian army, being
in less dread of the anger of Louis IX. than of that of the sultan of
Cairo, who had it in his power to ruin her mercantile establishments
in the East. At length the Genoese engaged to furnish vessels for the
expedition.

But the greatest difficulty was to find the money necessary for the
preparations of the war. Up to this period, the tenths levied upon the
clergy had supplied the expenses of the crusades;[23] and an opinion
generally prevailed, that a holy war ought to be paid for by men
attached to the Church and devoted to the altars of Jesus Christ. Urban
IV., the predecessor of Clement, had already ordered throughout the
West, that a levy of a hundredth should be made upon the revenues of
the clergy; and, what might be considered a traffic in holy things, the
court of Rome permitted the distributing of indulgences, which faculty
was granted in proportion with what was given beyond the tribute
required. The French clergy had addressed several petitions to the pope
upon this subject; but these petitions always remained unnoticed.

When the late determination of Louis IX. became known, the Holy See
had recourse to the customary means, and, without the least attention
to complaints, which were not without foundation, the order was
issued to levy again a tenth during three years. Upon this the clergy
redoubled their opposition, and were much more earnest in the defence
of their own revenues than in the defence of the Holy Land. They
complained to the king, and they sent deputies to Rome, to show the
depth of the misery into which the Church of France was plunged by
the burdens imposed upon it;[24] these deputies represented to the
sovereign pontiff that the exactions of latter times became every day
more intolerable, and that the property of the clergy was no longer
sufficient to support the altars and feed the poor of Jesus Christ.
They added, that injustice and violence had formerly separated the
Greek Church from that of Rome; giving his holiness to understand,
that new rigours would not fail to produce new schisms. They further
said, that if most crusades, particularly the expedition of Louis IX.
into Egypt, had been unfortunate, it no doubt arose from the sanctuary
having been plundered, and the churches ruined for the sake of them;
as a last reason, they prognosticated much greater calamities for the
future than any that had been experienced.

Such an address necessarily inflamed the anger of the sovereign
pontiff. Clement, in his reply, warmly reproached the deputies, and
they who had sent them, with their indifference for the cause of
all Christians, and for their avarice, which made them deny their
superfluous wealth for the prosecution of a war in which so many
princes and illustrious warriors perilled their lives. He pointed to
the excommunication ready to fall upon their heads, and, what must
have much more terrified them, he threatened to deprive them of their
property and their benefices. Such was then the power of Rome, that
nothing could be possessed without its pleasure: the clergy were
obliged to submit, and pay the tenth during four years. The pope
further empowered the king to dispose of all the sums bequeathed by
will for the assistance of the Holy Land; he equally abandoned to him
the money that might be drawn from those who, having taken the cross,
were desirous of redeeming their vows; which latter means must have
produced a considerable sum, as the clergy gave the cross to everybody,
and refused dispensation to nobody.

Louis IX. neglected none of the resources that his position as king of
France placed in his hands; at this period no regular impost was known,
and, to support the splendour of their thrones, kings had nothing to
depend upon but the revenues of their domains.[25] In order to provide
for all the expenses he was obliged to incur on this occasion, the king
had recourse to the impost called the capitation-tax, which suzerain
lords, according to feudal customs, required of each of their vassals
in any extraordinary circumstances. Usage authorized him to levy this
contribution on account of the crusade, but he had also the right, on
the occasion of a ceremony, at that time very important, in which his
eldest son Philip was to be received as a knight. Thus, the impost was
demanded in the name of chivalry and in the name of religion; it was
paid without a murmur, because Louis confided the gathering of it to
men of acknowledged integrity.

When Philip received the sword of knighthood, the French, and
particularly the Parisians, expressed their love for Louis IX. and
his family by public rejoicings; all the nobility hastened from the
provinces to be present at the festivities and spectacles that were
celebrated in the capital on this occasion. Amidst the tournaments,
the exercises of the tilt-yard, and the sports in which the skill and
courage of the _preux_ and the _paladins_ were displayed, the crusade
was not forgotten. The pope’s legate pronounced a discourse, in the
isle of St. Louis, upon the misfortunes of the Holy Land; all the
people appeared to be deeply moved by the exhortations of the prelate;
a crowd of knights, and warriors of all classes, took the cross; thus
Louis IX. found in this circumstance an opportunity of raising money
for the support of his army, and of procuring recruits for the holy war.

Whilst all France was engaged in preparing for the expedition beyond
the seas, the crusade was preached in the other countries of Europe.
A council was held at Northampton, in England, in which Ottobon, the
pope’s legate, exhorted the faithful to arm themselves to save the
little that remained of the kingdom of Jerusalem; and Prince Edward
took the cross, to discharge the vow that his father Henry III. had
made when the news reached Europe of the captivity of Louis IX. in
Egypt. After the example of Edward, his brother Prince Edmund, with
the earls of Pembroke and Warwick, and many knights and barons, agreed
to take arms against the infidels. The same zeal for the deliverance
of the holy places was manifested in Scotland, where John Baliol and
several nobles enrolled themselves under the banners of the cross.

Catalonia and Castile furnished a great number of Crusaders: the king
of Portugal, and James, king of Arragon, took the cross. Dona Sancha,
one of the daughters of the Arragonese prince, had made a pilgrimage
to Jerusalem, and had died in the hospital of St. John, after devoting
many years to the service of pilgrims and the sick. James had several
times conquered the Moors; but neither his exploits against the
infidels, nor the remembrance of a daughter who had fallen a martyr
to Christian charity, could sustain his piety against the attacks of
his earthly passions, and his shameful connection with Berengaria
scandalized Christendom.

The pope, to whom he communicated his design of going to the Holy Land,
replied that Jesus Christ could not accept the services of a prince
_who crucified him every day by his sins_. The king of Arragon, by a
strange combination of opposite sentiments, would neither renounce
Berengaria nor give up his project of going to fight against the
infidels in the East. He renewed his oath in a great assembly at
Toledo, at which the ambassadors of the khan of Tartary and of the king
of Armenia were present. We read in a Spanish dissertation[26] upon the
crusades, that Alphonso the Wise, who was not able to go to the East
himself, furnished the king of Arragon with a hundred men and a hundred
thousand marvedis in gold; the order of St. James, and other orders of
knighthood, who had often accompanied the conqueror of the Moors in his
battles, supplied him also with men and money. The city of Barcelona
offered him eighty thousand Barcellonese sols, and Majorca fifty
thousand silver sols, with two equipped vessels. The fleet, composed of
thirty large ships and a great number of smaller craft, in which were
embarked eight hundred men-at-arms and two thousand foot-soldiers, set
out from Barcelona on the 4th of September, 1268. When they arrived
off Majorca, the fleet was dispersed by a tempest; one part of the
vessels gained the coasts of Asia, another took shelter in the ports of
Sardinia; the vessel the king of Arragon was on board of was cast upon
the coast of Languedoc.

The arrival at Ptolemaïs of the Arragonese Crusaders, commanded
by a natural son of James, restored some hopes to the Franks of
Palestine. An envoy from the king of Arragon, according to the Oriental
chronicles, repaired to the khan of the Tartars, to announce to him
that the Spanish monarch would soon arrive with his army. But whether
he was detained by the charms of Berengaria, or whether the tempest
that dispersed his fleet made him believe that Heaven was averse to his
pilgrimage, James did not arrive. His departure, in which he appeared
to despise the counsels of the Holy See, had been severely censured;
and his return, which was attributed to his disgraceful passion, met
with an equal share of blame. Murmurs likewise arose against the king
of Portugal, who had levied the tenths, but did not leave his kingdom.

All those who in Europe took an interest in the crusade had, at this
time, their eyes directed towards the kingdom of Naples, where Charles
of Anjou was making great preparations to accompany his brother into
the East; but this kingdom, recently conquered, was doomed again to be
the theatre of a war kindled by vengeance and ambition. There fell out
in the states of Naples and Sicily, which had so often changed masters,
that which almost always takes place after a revolution: deceived hopes
were changed into hatreds: the excesses inseparable from a conquest,
the presence of an army proud of its victories, with the too violent
government of Charles, animated the people against their new king.
Clement IV. thought it his duty to give a timely and salutary warning:
“Your kingdom,” he wrote to him, “at first exhausted by the agents
of your authority, is now torn by your enemies; thus the caterpillar
destroys what has escaped the grasshopper. The kingdom of Sicily and
Naples has not been wanting in men to desolate it; where now are they
that will defend it?” This letter of the pope announced storms ready
to break forth. Many of those who had called Charles to the throne,
regretted the house of Swabia, and directed their new hopes towards
Conradin, heir of Frederick and of Conrad. This young prince quitted
Germany with an army, and advanced towards Italy, strengthening himself
in his march with the party of the Ghibellines, and with all those whom
the domination of Charles had irritated. All Italy was in flames, and
the pope, Charles’s protector, retired to Viterbo, had no defence to
afford him, except the thunders of the Church.

Charles of Anjou, however, assembled his troops, and marched out to
meet his rival. The two armies met in the plain of St. Valentine, near
Aquila; the army of Conradin was cut to pieces, and the young prince
fell into the power of the conqueror. Posterity cannot pardon Charles
for having abused his victory even so far as to condemn and decapitate
his disarmed and vanquished enemy.[27] After this execution, Sicily
and the country of Naples were given up to all the furies of a jealous,
suspicious tyranny; for violence produces violence, and great political
crimes never come alone. It was thus that Charles got ready for the
crusade; but, on the other hand, Providence was preparing terrible
catastrophes for him: “So true it is,” says an historian, “that God as
often gives kingdoms to punish those he elevates, as to chastise those
whom he brings low.”

Whilst these bloody scenes were passing in Italy, Louis IX. was
following up the establishment of public peace and his darling object,
the crusade, at the same time. The holy monarch did not forget that the
surest manner of softening the evils of war, as well as of his absence,
was to make good laws; he therefore issued several ordinances, and each
of these ordinances was a monument of his justice. The most celebrated
of all is the Pragmatic Sanction, which Bossuet called the firmest
support of Gallican liberties. He also employed himself in elevating
that monument of legislation which illustrated his reign, and which
became a light for following ages.

The count of Poictiers, who was to accompany his brother, was in
the mean time engaged in pacifying his provinces, and established
many regulations for maintaining public order. He, above everything,
endeavoured to abolish slavery; having for a maxim, “That men are born
free, and it is always wise to bring back things to their origin.” This
good prince drew upon himself the benedictions of his people; and the
love of his vassals assured the duration of the laws he made.

We have said that Prince Edward, son of Henry III., had taken the oath
to combat the infidels. He had recently displayed a brilliant valour in
the civil war that had so long desolated England; and the deliverance
of his father and the pacification of the kingdom had been the reward
of his exploits. It was his esteem for the character of Louis IX.,
more than the spirit of devotion, that induced him to set out for the
East. The king of France, who himself exhorted him to take the cross,
lent him seventy thousand livres tournois for the preparations for his
voyage. Edward was to follow Louis as his vassal, and to conduct under
his banners the English Crusaders, united with those of Guienne. Gaston
de Béarn, to whom the French monarch advanced the sum of twenty-five
thousand livres, prepared to follow Prince Edward to the Holy Land.

The period fixed upon for the departure of the expedition was drawing
near. By order of the legate, the curés in every parish had taken the
names of the Crusaders, in order to oblige them to wear the cross
publicly, and all had notice to hold themselves in readiness to embark
in the month of May, 1270. Louis confided the administration of his
kingdom, during his absence, to Matthew, abbot of St. Denis, and to
Simon, sieur de Nesle; he wrote to all the nobles who were to follow
him into the Holy Land, to recommend them to assemble their knights
and men-at-arms. As religious enthusiasm was not sufficiently strong
to make men forget their worldly interests, many nobles who had taken
the cross entertained great fears of being ruined by the holy war,
and most of them hesitated to set out. Louis undertook to pay all the
expenses of their voyage, and to maintain them at his own cost during
the war,—a thing that had not been done in the crusades of Louis
VII. or Philip Augustus, in which the ardour of the Crusaders did not
allow them to give a thought to their fortunes, or to exercise so
much foresight. We have still a valuable monument of this epoch in a
charter, by which the king of France stipulates how much he is to pay
to a great number of barons and knights during the time the war beyond
the seas should last.

Early in the month of March, Louis repaired to the church of St. Denis,
where he received the symbols of pilgrimage, and placed his kingdom
under the protection of the apostles of France.[28] Upon the day
following this solemn ceremony, a mass for the crusade was celebrated
in the church of Notre Dame, at Paris. The monarch appeared there,
accompanied by his children and the principal nobles of his court; he
walked from the palace barefooted, carrying his scrip and staff. The
same day he went to sleep at Vincennes, and beheld, for the last time,
the spot on which he had enjoyed so much happiness in administering
justice to his people. And it was here too that he took leave of Queen
Marguerite, whom he had never before quitted,—a separation rendered so
much the more painful by the sorrowful reflection it recalled of past
events, and by melancholy presentiments for the future.

Both the people and the court were affected by the deepest regret,
and that which added to the public anxiety was the circumstance that
every one was ignorant of the point to which the expedition was to be
directed: the coast of Africa was only vaguely conjectured. The king
of Sicily had taken the cross without having the least inclination
to embark for Asia; and when the question was discussed in council,
he gave it as his opinion that Tunis should be the object of the
first attack. The kingdom of Tunis covered the seas with pirates,
who infested all the routes to Palestine; it was, besides, the ally
of Egypt, and might, if subdued, be made the readiest road to that
country. These were the ostensible reasons put forth; the true ones
were, that it was of importance to the king of Sicily that the coasts
of Africa should be brought under European subjection, and that he did
not wish to go too far from Italy. The true reason with St. Louis,
and that which, no doubt, determined him, was, that he believed it
possible to convert the king of Tunis, and thus bring a vast kingdom
under the Christian banners. The Mussulman prince, whose ambassadors
had been several times in France, had himself given birth to this idea,
by saying, that he asked nothing better than to embrace the religion
of Jesus Christ:[29] thus, that which he had said to turn aside an
invasion, was precisely the cause of the war being directed against
his territories. Louis IX. often repeated that he would consent to pass
the whole of his life in a dungeon, without seeing the sun, if, by such
a sacrifice, the conversion of the king of Tunis and his nation could
be brought about; an expression of ardent proselytism that has been
blamed with much bitterness, but which only showed an extreme desire
to see Africa delivered from barbarism, and marching with Europe in
the progress of intelligence and civilization, which are the great
blessings of Christianity.

As Louis traversed his kingdom on his way to Aigues-Mortes, where the
army of the Crusaders was to embark, he was everywhere hailed by the
benedictions of his people, and gratified by hearing their ardent
prayers for the success of his arms; the clergy and the faithful,
assembled in the churches, prayed for the king and his children, and
all that should follow him. They prayed also for foreign princes and
nobles who had taken the cross, and promised to go into the East; as if
they would, by that means, press them to hasten their departure.

Very few, however, responded to this religious appeal. The king of
Castile, who had taken the cross, had pretensions to the imperial
crown, nor could he forget the death of his brother Frederick,
immolated by Charles of Anjou. It was not only that the affairs of
the empire detained the German princes and nobles; the death of young
Conradin had so shocked and disgusted men’s minds in Germany, that no
one from that country would have consented to fight under the same
banners as the king of Sicily. So black a crime, committed amidst the
preparations for a holy war, appeared to presage great calamities. In
the height of their grief or indignation, people might fear that Heaven
would be angry with the Christians, and that its curse would fall upon
the arms of the Crusaders.

When Louis arrived at Aigues-Mortes, he found neither the Genoese fleet
nor the principal nobles who were to embark with him; the ambassadors
of Palæologus were the only persons who did not cause themselves to
be waited for; for a great dread of the crusade was entertained at
Constantinople, and this fear was more active than the enthusiasm of
the Crusaders. Louis might have asked the Greek emperor why, after
having promised to send soldiers, he had only sent ambassadors; but
Louis, who attached great importance to the conversion of the Greeks,
contented himself with removing the apprehensions of the envoys, and,
as Clement IV. died at that period, he sent them to the conclave of the
cardinals, to terminate the reunion of the two churches.

At length the unwilling Crusaders, stimulated by repeated exhortations,
and by the example of Louis, set forward on their march from all the
provinces, and directed their course towards the ports of Aigues-Mortes
and Marseilles. Louis soon welcomed the arrival of the count of
Poictiers, with a great number of his vassals; the principal nobles
brought with them the most distinguished of their knights and their
most brave and hardy soldiers; many cities likewise contributed their
supply of warriors. Each troop had its banner, and formed a separate
corps, bearing the name of a city or a province; the battalions of
Beaucaire, Carcassonne, Châlons, Perigord, &c., attracted observation
in the Christian army. These names, it is true, excited great
emulation, but they also gave rise to quarrels, which the wisdom and
firmness of Louis had great difficulty in appeasing. Crusaders arrived
from Catalonia, Castile, and several other provinces of Spain; five
hundred warriors from Friesland likewise ranged themselves with full
confidence under the standard of such a leader as Louis, saying, that
their nation had always been proud to obey the kings of France.

Before he embarked, the king wrote once more to the regents of the
kingdom, to recommend them to watch carefully over public morals,
to deliver France from corrupt judges, and to render to everybody,
particularly to the poor, prompt and perfect justice, so that He who
judges the judgments of men might have nothing to reproach him with.

Such were the last farewells that Louis took of France. The fleet
set sail on the fourth of July, 1270, and in a few days arrived in
the road of Cagliari. Here the council of the counts and barons was
assembled in the king’s vessel, to deliberate upon the plan of the
crusade. Those who advocated the conquest of Tunis, said that by that
means the passages of the Mediterranean would be opened, and the power
of the Mamelukes would be weakened; and that after that conquest the
army would go triumphantly into either Egypt or Palestine. Many of
the barons were not of this opinion; they said, if the Holy Land stood
in need of prompt assistance, they ought to afford it without delay;
whilst they were engaged on the coast of Africa, in a country with
which they were unacquainted, the Christian cities of Syria might all
fall into the hands of the Saracens; the most redoubtable enemy of the
Christians was Bibars, the terrible sultan of Cairo; it was him they
ought first to attack; it was into his states, into the bosom of his
capital, that the war should be carried, and not to a place two hundred
leagues from Egypt. They added to this, remembrances of the defeats of
the French army on the banks of the Nile,—defeats that ought to be
avenged upon the very theatre of so many disasters.

Contemporary history does not say to what extent Louis was struck
with the wisdom of these last opinions; but the expedition to Tunis
flattered his most cherished hopes. It had been proposed by the king of
Sicily, whose concurrence was necessary to the success of the crusade.
It was, therefore, decided that the Genoese fleet should direct its
course towards Africa; and two days after, on the twentieth of July, it
arrived in sight of Tunis and Carthage.

On the western coast of Africa, opposite Sicily, is a peninsula,
described by Strabo, whose circumference is three hundred and forty
stadii, or forty-two miles. This peninsula advances into the sea
between two gulfs, one of which, on the west, offers a commodious
port; the other, on the south-east, communicates, by means of a canal,
with a lake which extends three leagues into the land, and which
modern geographers term the Gullet. It was upon this spot was built
the great rival of Rome, whose site extended over the two shores of
the sea. Neither the conquests of the Romans, nor the ravages of the
Vandals, had been able to entirely destroy this once flourishing city;
but in the seventh century, after being invaded and laid waste by the
Saracens, it became nothing but a mass of ruins; a moderate-sized
village upon the port, called Marsa, a tower on the point of the
cape, a pretty strong castle on the hill of Byrsa,—these were all
the remains of that city whose power so long dominated over the
Mediterranean and the coasts of Africa and Asia.

At five leagues’ distance, towards the south-east, a little beyond
the gulf and the lake of the Gullet, arose a city, called in ancient
times Tynis or Tunissa,[30] of which Scipio made himself master before
he attacked Carthage. Tunis had thriven by the fall of other cities,
and in the thirteenth century she vied in wealth and population with
the most flourishing cities of Africa. It contained ten thousand
houses, and had three extensive suburbs; the spoils of nations and the
produce of an immense commerce had enriched it; and all that the art of
fortification could invent had been employed to defend the access to it.

The coast on which Tunis stood was the theatre of many revolutions,
of which ancient history has transmitted accounts to us; but modern
history has not, in the same manner, consecrated the revolutions of
the Saracens. We can scarcely follow the march of the barbarians who
planted the standard of Islamism upon so many ruins. All that we
positively know is, that Tunis, for a long time united to the kingdom
of Morocco, was separated from it under a warlike prince, whose third
successor was reigning in the time of St. Louis.

At the sight of the Christian fleet, the inhabitants of the coast of
Africa were seized with terror, and all who were upon the Carthage
shore took flight towards the mountains or towards Tunis. Some vessels
that were in the port were abandoned by their crews; the king ordered
Florent de Varennes, who performed the functions of admiral, to get
into a boat and reconnoitre the coast. Varennes found nobody in the
port or upon the shore; he sent word to the king that there was no time
to be lost, he must take immediate advantage of the consternation of
the enemy. But it was remembered that in the preceding expedition the
descent upon the coast of Egypt had been too precipitate; in this it
was determined to risk nothing. Inexperienced youth had presided over
the former war; now it was directed by old age and ripe manhood: it was
resolved to wait till the morrow.

The next day, at dawn, the coast appeared covered with Saracens,
among whom were many men on horseback. The Crusaders, not the less,
commenced their preparations for landing. At the approach of the
Christians, the multitude of infidels disappeared; which, according
to the account of an eye witness, was a blessing from Heaven, for the
disorder was so great, that a hundred men would have been sufficient to
stop the disembarkation of the whole army.

When the Christian army had landed, it was drawn up in order of battle
upon the shore, and, in accordance with the laws of war, Pierre de
Condé, almoner to the king, read, with a loud voice, a proclamation,
by which the conquerors took possession of the territory. This
proclamation, which Louis had drawn up himself, began by these words:
“I proclaim, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of Louis, king
of France, his sergeant,” &c.[31]

The baggage, provisions, and munitions of war were landed; a vast space
was marked out, and the Christian soldiers pitched their tents. Whilst
they were digging ditches and raising intrenchments to protect the army
from a surprise, they took possession of the tower built on the point
of the cape; and on the following day, five hundred sailors planted
the standard of the lilies upon the castle of Carthage. The village of
Marsa, which was close to the castle, fell likewise into the hands of
the Crusaders; the women and the sick were placed here, whilst the army
remained beneath their tents.

Louis still hoped for the conversion of the king of Tunis, but this
pious illusion was very quickly dissolved. The Mussulman prince sent
messengers to the king, to inform, him that he would come and meet him
at the head of a hundred thousand men, and would require baptism of him
on the field of battle; the Moorish king added, that he had caused all
the Christians in his dominions to be seized, and that every one of
them should be massacred if the Christian army presumed to insult his
capital.

The menaces and vain bravadoes of the prince of Tunis effected no
change in the plans of the crusade; the Moors, besides, inspired no
fear, and they themselves could not conceal the terror which the sight
only of the Christians created in them. Not daring to face their
enemy, their scattered bands sometimes hovered around the Christian
army, seeking to surprise any stragglers from the camp; and at others,
uniting together, they poured down towards the advanced posts, launched
a few arrows, showed their naked swords, and then depended upon the
swiftness of their horses to secure them from the pursuit of the
Christians. They not unfrequently had recourse to treachery: three
hundred of them came into the camp of the Crusaders, and said they
wished to embrace the Christian faith, and a hundred more followed
them, announcing the same intention.[32] After being received with
open arms, they waited for what they deemed a favourable opportunity,
and fell upon a body of the Christians, sword in hand; but being
overwhelmed by numbers, most of them were killed, and the rest were
allowed to escape. Three of the principals fell on their knees, and
implored the compassion of the leaders. The contempt the Franks had for
such enemies obtained their pardon, and they were driven out of the
camp.

At length the Mussulman army, emboldened by the inaction of the
Christians, presented itself several times on the plain. Nothing would
have been more easy than to attack and conquer it; but Louis had
resolved to act upon the defensive, and to await the arrival of the
king of Sicily for beginning the war,—a fatal resolution, which ruined
everything: the Sicilian monarch, who had advised this ill-starred
expedition, was destined to complete, by his delays, the evil he had
begun by his counsels.

The Mussulmans flocked from all parts of Africa to defend the cause
of Islamism against the Christians. Preparations were carried on in
Egypt to meet the invasion of the Franks, and in the month of August,
Bibars announced by messengers, that he was about to march to the
assistance of Tunis. The troops which the sultan of Cairo maintained
in the province of Barka received orders to set forward. Thus, the
Moorish army was about to become formidable; but it was not this host
of Saracens that the Crusaders had most to dread. Other dangers, other
misfortunes threatened them: the Christian army wanted water; they had
none but salted provisions; the soldiers could not endure the climate
of Africa; winds constantly prevailed, which, coming from the torrid
zone, appeared to the Europeans to be the breath of a devouring fire.
The Saracens upon the neighbouring mountains raised the sand with
certain instruments made for the purpose, and the dust was carried
by the wind in burning clouds down upon the plain upon which the
Christians were encamped. At last, dysentery, that fatal malady of
warm climates, began to commit frightful ravages among the troops; and
the plague, which appears to be born of itself upon this burning, arid
sand, spread its dire contagion through the Christian army.

They were obliged to be under arms night and day; not to defend
themselves from an enemy that always fled away from them, but to
guard against surprise. A vast number of the Crusaders sunk under
fatigue, famine, and disease. The French had soon to regret the loss
of Bouchard, count de Vendome, the count de la Marche, Gauthier
de Nemours, the lords de Montmorency, de Pienne, de Bressac, Guy
d’Aspremont, and Raoul, brother of the count de Soissons. It became
impossible to bury the dead; the ditches of the camp were filled with
carcases, thrown in heaps, which added to the corruption of the air and
to the spectacle of the general desolation.

At length Olivier de Termes, a Languedocian gentleman, coming from
Sicily, announced that King Charles was quite ready to embark with his
army. This news was received with joy, but had no power to alleviate
the evils the Crusaders were then exposed to. The heats became
excessive; the want of water, bad food, disease, which continued its
ravages, and the grief at being shut up in a camp without the power
to fight, completed the despondency that had taken possession of the
minds of leaders and soldiers. Louis endeavoured to cheer them both
by his words and his example; but he himself fell ill with dysentery.
Prince Philip, the duke de Nevers, the king of Navarre, and the legate
also felt the effects of the contagion. The duke de Nevers, surnamed
Tristan, was born at Damietta during the captivity of the king, and was
particularly the object of his father’s love. The young prince remained
in the royal tent; but as he appeared to be sinking under the effects
of the disease, it was judged best to convey him on board one of the
vessels. The monarch incessantly demanded news of his son; but all who
surrounded him preserved a melancholy silence. At length they were
obliged to inform him that the duke de Nevers was dead; the feelings
of the father prevailed over the resignation of the Christian, and he
wept bitterly. A short time afterwards, the pope’s legate died, deeply
regretted by the clergy and the soldiers of the cross, who regarded him
as their spiritual father.

In spite of his sufferings, in spite of his griefs, Louis IX. was
constantly engaged in endeavours to alleviate the situation of his
army. He gave orders as long as he had any strength left, dividing
his time between the duties of a Christian and those of a monarch.
The fever, however, increased; no longer able to attend either to his
cares for the army or to exercises of piety, he ordered the cross to be
placed before him, and stretching out his hands, he in silence implored
Him who had suffered for all men.

The whole army was in a state of mourning; the soldiers walked about in
tears, demanding of Heaven the preservation of so good a prince. Amidst
the general grief, Louis turned his thoughts towards the accomplishment
of the divine laws and the destinies of France. Philip, who was his
successor to the throne, was in his tent; he desired him to approach
his bed, and in a faltering voice gave him counsels in what manner he
should govern the kingdom of his fathers. The instructions he gave him
comprise the most noble maxims of religion and loyalty; and that which
will render them for ever worthy of the respect of posterity is, that
they had the authority of his example, and only recalled the virtues of
his own life. After having recommended Philip to respect, and cause to
be respected, religion and its ministers, and at all times, and above
all things, to fear to offend God:[33] “My dear son,” added he, “be
charitable and merciful towards the poor and all who suffer. If thou
attainest the throne, show thyself worthy, by thy conduct, of receiving
the holy unction with which the kings of France are consecrated. When
thou shalt be king, show thyself just in all things, and let nothing
turn thee aside from the path of truth and rectitude. If the widow and
orphan contend before thee with the powerful man, declare thyself of
the party of the feeble against the strong, until the truth shall be
known to thee. In affairs in which thou thyself shalt be interested,
support at first the cause of the other; for if thou dost not act in
that sort, thy counsellors will hesitate to speak against thee, which
thou oughtest not to desire. My dear son, above all things I recommend
thee to avoid war with every Christian nation; if thou art reduced by
necessity to make it, at least take care that the poor people, who are
not in the wrong, be kept safe from all harm. Give all thy efforts to
appease the divisions that may arise in thy kingdom, for nothing is so
pleasing to God as the spectacle of concord and peace. Neglect nothing
to provide good lieutenants (baillis) and provosts in thy provinces.
Give power freely to men who know how to use it, and punish all who
abuse it; for if it is thy duty to hate evil in another, much greater
reason hast thou to hate it in them who hold their authority of thee.
Be just in the levying of thy public taxes, and be wise and moderate
in the expenditure of them; beware of foolish expenses, which lead to
unjust imposts; correct with prudence all that is defective in the laws
of thy kingdom. Maintain with loyalty the rights and franchises that
thy predecessors have left, for the happier that thy subjects shall be,
the greater thou wilt be; the more irreproachable thy government shall
be, the more thy enemies will fear to attack it.”

Louis gave Philip several more counsels upon the love he owed to God,
his people, and his family; then pouring out his full heart, he uttered
nothing but the language of a parent who is about to be separated
from a son he loves tenderly. “I bestow upon thee,” said he, “all the
benedictions that a father can bestow upon a dear son. Aid me by masses
and prayers, and let me have a part in all the good actions thou shalt
perform. I beseech our Lord Jesus Christ, by his great mercy, to guard
thee from all evils, and to keep thee from doing anything contrary to
his will; and that after this mortal life we may see Him, love Him, and
praise Him together in a life everlasting.”

When we reflect that these words were pronounced on the coast of
Africa by a dying king of France, we experience a mixture of surprise
and emotion, which even the coldest and most indifferent hearts can
scarcely fail to partake of. Judge, then, of the effect they must
have produced upon the feelings of a desolate son! Philip listened
to them with respectful sorrow, and commanded them to be faithfully
transcribed, in order that he might have them before his eyes all the
days of his life.[34]

Louis then turned to his daughter, the queen of Navarre, who sat,
drowned in tears, at the foot of his bed: in a precept which he had
prepared for her, he laid before her all the duties of a queen and a
wife. Above all, he recommended her to take the greatest care of her
husband, who was then sick; and, never forgetful of even the smallest
circumstances, he advised the king of Navarre, on his return to
Champagne, to pay all his debts before he began to rebuild the convent
of the Cordeliers of Provins.

These instructions were the last words that Louis addressed to his
children; from that time they never saw him again. The ambassadors of
Michael Palæologus arriving in the camp, the king consented to receive
them. In the state in which Louis then was, it was impossible for
him to see through the false promises of the Greeks, or the alarms
and deceitful policy of their emperor; he no longer gave attention
to the things of this world. He confined himself to the expression
of his earnest wishes that the reunion of the two churches might at
length be effected, and promised the ambassadors that his son Philip
would do everything in his power to bring it about. These envoys were
Meliteniote, archdeacon of the imperial chapel, and the celebrated
Vechus, chancellor of the church of Constantinople. They were both so
much affected by the words and the virtues of St. Louis, that they
afterwards gave their most zealous endeavours to promote the reunion,
and both ended by becoming victims to the policy of the Greeks.

After this interview Louis thought of nothing but his God, and remained
alone with his confessor. His almoners recited before him the prayers
of the Church, to which he responded. He then received the Viaticum and
extreme unction. “From Sunday, at the hour of nones,” says an ocular
witness, “till Monday, at the hour of tierce, his mouth never ceased,
either day or night, to praise our Lord, and to pray for the people he
had brought to that place.” He was heard to pronounce these words of
the prophet-king: “Grant, Lord, that we may despise the prosperities
of this world, and know how to brave its adversities.” He likewise
repeated, as loudly as his feeble state would permit, this verse of
another psalm: “Oh, God! deign to sanctify thy people, and to watch
over them.” Sometimes he invoked St. Denis, whom he was accustomed to
invoke in battle, and implored him to grant his heavenly support to
this army he was about to leave without a leader. In the night between
Sunday and Monday he was heard to pronounce the word _Jerusalem_ twice,
and then he added: “We will go to Jerusalem.” His mind was constantly
occupied with the idea of the holy war. Perhaps, likewise, he saw
nothing then but the heavenly Jerusalem, the last country of the just
man.

At nine o’clock in the morning of Monday, the twenty-fifth of August,
he lost his speech; but he still looked upon all who were round him
kindly (_débonnairement_). His countenance was calm, and it was evident
that his mind was, at the same time, divided between the purest of
earthly affections and the thoughts of eternity. Feeling that death was
approaching fast, he made signs to his attendants to place him, covered
by hair-cloth, upon a bed of ashes. Between the hours of tierce and
mid-day he appeared to sleep, and lay with his eyes closed for more
than half an hour at a time. He then seemed to revive, opened his eyes,
and looking towards heaven, exclaimed: “O Lord! I shall enter into thy
house, and shall worship thee in thy holy tabernacle!” Hi died at three
o’clock in the afternoon.

We have spoken of the profound grief which prevailed among the
Crusaders when Louis fell sick. There was not a leader or a soldier
that did not forget his own ills in his anxiety for the king. At every
hour of the day and night these faithful warriors crowded round the
monarch’s tent, and when they beheld the sad and apprehensive air of
all who came out of it, they turned away, with their eyes cast to the
earth, and their souls filled with the most gloomy thoughts. In the
camp, the soldiers scarcely durst ask each other a question, for they
heard none but sorrowful tidings. At length, when the event that all
had dreaded was announced to the army, the French warriors abandoned
themselves to despair; they saw in the death of Louis a signal for all
sorts of calamities, and anxiously inquired of each other what leader
was to conduct them back to their homes. With the general groans and
tears were mingled many bitter reproaches against those who had advised
this fatal expedition, particularly the king of Sicily, whom all
accused of being the cause of the disasters of the war.

On the very day of the king’s death Charles of Anjou and his army
landed near Carthage; trumpets and other warlike music resounded along
the shore, but a profound and melancholy silence was preserved in the
camp of the Crusaders, and not a man went forth to meet the Sicilians,
whom they had looked for with so much impatience. Sad forebodings
rushed into the mind of Charles; he galloped forward, and flying to the
tent of the king, found his royal brother dead, and stretched upon his
bed of ashes. The features of Louis were scarcely altered, his death
had been so calm. Charles prostrated himself at his feet, watering them
with his tears, and calling him sometimes his brother, sometimes his
lord. He remained a long time in this attitude, without seeing any of
those who surrounded him, continuing to address Louis as if he had been
still living, and reproaching himself, in accents of despair, with not
having heard, with not having received, the last words of the most
affectionate of brothers and best of kings.

The mortal remains of Louis were deposited in two funereal urns. The
entrails of the holy monarch were granted to Charles of Anjou, who
sent them to the abbey of Montréal, where these precious relics, for
a length of time, attracted the devotion and respect of the faithful.
The bones and the heart of Louis remained in the hands of Philip.
This young prince was desirous of sending them to France, but the
leaders and soldiers would not consent to be separated from all that
was left to them of their beloved monarch. The presence of this sacred
deposit amongst the Crusaders appeared to them a safeguard against new
misfortunes, and the most sure means of drawing down the protection of
Heaven upon the Christian army.

Philip was still sick, and his malady created great anxiety. The
army considered him the worthy successor of Louis, and the affection
that had been felt for the father descended to the son; he received,
amidst the public grief, the homage and oaths of the leaders, barons,
and nobles. His first care was to confirm the regency, and all that
his father had established in France before his departure. Geoffrey
de Beaulieu, William de Chartres, and John de Mons, confessors and
almoners to the king, were directed to carry these orders of Philip’s
into the West. Among the letters which these ecclesiastics took with
them into France, history has preserved that which was addressed to
the clergy _and to all people of worth_ in the kingdom.[35] After
having described their labours, the perils and the death of Louis
IX., the young prince implored God to grant that he might follow the
steps of so good a father, might accomplish his sacred commands, and
put in practice all his counsels. Philip concluded his letter, which
was read aloud in all churches, by supplicating the ecclesiastics and
the faithful “to put up to the King of Kings their prayers and their
offerings for that prince, with whose zeal for religion, and tender
solicitude for the kingdom of France, which he loved as the apple of
his eye, they were so well acquainted.”

The death of Louis had greatly raised the confidence of the Saracens.
The mourning and grief which they observed in the Christian army were,
by them, mistaken for discouragement, and they flattered themselves
they should obtain a triumph over their enemies; but these hopes
were speedily dispelled. The king of Sicily took the command of the
Christian army during the sickness of Philip, and resumed the war.
The troops he had brought with him were eager for fight, and all
the French seemed anxious to seek a distraction from their grief
in the field of battle. The disease which had desolated their army
appeared to have suspended its ravages, and the soldiers, a long time
imprisoned in their camp, felt their strength revive at the sight
of the perils of war. Several conflicts took place around the lake
of the Gullet, of which the Christians wished to get possession, to
facilitate their approach to Tunis. The Moors, who, but a few days
before, threatened to exterminate or make slaves of all the Crusaders,
were not able to sustain the shock of their enemies; the cross-bowmen
alone were frequently sufficient to disperse their numberless
multitude. Horrible howlings, with the noise of kettle-drums and other
instruments, announced their approach; clouds of dust descending from
the neighbouring heights announced their retreat, and screened their
flight. In two encounters they were overtaken, and left a great many
of their host stretched upon the plain. Another time their camp was
carried, and given up to pillage. The sovereign of Tunis could not
reckon upon his army for the defence of his states, and he himself set
them no example of bravery, for he remained constantly shut up in his
subterranean grottoes, to avoid at the same time the burning rays of
the sun and the perils of fight. Pressed by his fears, he at length
could see no hopes of safety but in peace, and he resolved to purchase
it, even at the cost of all his treasures. His ambassadors came
repeatedly to the Christian army with directions to make proposals,
and, above all, to endeavour to seduce the king of Sicily by brilliant
promises.[36]

When the report of these negotiations was spread through the camp of
the Crusaders, it gave birth to very different opinions. The soldiers,
to whom the plunder of Tunis had been promised, wished to continue the
war; some of the leaders, to whom other hopes had been given, did not
evince the same ardour as the soldiers. By the death of Louis IX. and
the apostolic legate, the crusade had lost both its principal motive
and that moral force which had animated everything. The spirit of the
Crusaders, which nobody directed, worked upon by a thousand various
passions, floated in uncertainty, and this uncertainty was likely, in
the end, to keep the army in a state of inaction, and bring about the
abandonment of the war. Philip was desirous of returning to France,
whither the affairs of his kingdom peremptorily called him. Most of the
barons and French nobles began to sigh for their country. At length it
was agreed that the pacific proposals of the king of Tunis should be
deliberated upon.

In the council, those to whom no promise had been held out, and who
were not so impatient as the others to quit the coast of Africa, were
of opinion that they ought to prosecute the war. “It was for the
conquest of Tunis that Louis IX. had embarked at Carthage, and that the
Christian army had undergone so many evils. How could they pay higher
honour to the memory of Louis and so many Frenchmen, like him, martyrs
to their zeal and their faith, than by carrying on and completing
their work? All Christendom knew that the Crusaders threatened Tunis,
that the Moors fled at the sight of them, and that the city was ready
to open its gates. What would Christendom say on learning that the
Crusaders had fled before the vanquished, and robbed themselves of
their own victory?”

Those who were of opinion that the peace should be concluded,
answered, that the question was not only to enter Tunis, but to
conquer the country, which could only be done by exterminating the
population. “Besides, a prolonged siege would very much weaken the
Christian army. Winter was approaching, in which they could procure no
provisions, and in which continual rains would, perhaps, cause more
diseases than excessive heat had done. The taking of Tunis was not the
principal object of the crusade; it was necessary to make peace upon
advantageous conditions, to obtain means to carry the war afterwards
where circumstances might require.” The leaders who spoke thus were
themselves the same that had promoted the expedition against Tunis: the
king of Sicily was at their head; they no longer urged the necessity
for clearing the Mediterranean of pirates who infested the route of
pilgrims; they said no more about depriving the sultan of Egypt of
his most powerful ally. The reasons they gave for putting an end to
the war were precisely the same as they had given for commencing it.
Their opinion, however, prevailed; not because others were convinced
by what they heard, but, as it often happens in the most important
deliberations, the majority decide rather from motives they do not
avow, than from those they appear to support.[37]

On the thirty-first of October a truce of ten years was concluded
between the king of Tunis and the leaders of the Christian army. All
the prisoners were to be given up on both sides, and Christians who had
been previously captives were to be set at liberty. The sovereign of
Tunis engaged not to require of the Franks any of the dues imposed in
his kingdom upon foreign commerce. The treaty granted all Christians
liberty to reside in the states of Tunis, to build churches there, and
even to preach their faith there. The Mussulman prince was bound to
pay to the king of Sicily an annual tribute of forty thousand crowns,
and two hundred and ten thousand ounces of gold to the leader of the
Christian army for the expenses of the war.

It was, doubtless, the last condition that decided the question: the
two hundred and ten thousand ounces of gold exceeded the sum that Louis
IX. had paid in Egypt for the ransom of his army; but a part of it only
was received at first. Who could assure the payment of the rest when
the Christian army had quitted the coast of Africa? The king of Sicily
alone could derive any advantage from this treaty, so disgraceful to
the French arms; he had not only found means of making a Mussulman
prince pay the tribute of forty thousand gold crowns, which he owed the
Pope as vassal of the Holy See; but the peace which they had concluded,
in some sort, placed at his disposal an army capable of undertaking
much greater conquests than that of Tunis. Thus, complaints immediately
arose reproaching the king of Sicily with having, at his pleasure,
changed the aim of the crusade, in order to make the Christian army
subservient to his ambition.

A few days after the signing of the truce, Prince Edward arrived off
the coast of Carthage, with the English and Scotch Crusaders. Having
sailed from Aigues-Mortes, he directed his course towards Palestine,
and came to take orders from the king of France. The French and
Sicilians were prodigal in their expressions of sincere friendship
for the English. Edward was received with great honours, but when he
learned they had made peace, he retired into his tent, and refused to
be present at any of the councils of the Christian army.

The Crusaders became impatient to quit an arid and murderous land,
which recalled to them nothing but misfortunes, without the least
mixture of glory. The Christian army embarked on the eighteenth of
November for Sicily; and, as if Heaven had decreed that this expedition
should be nothing but a series of misfortunes, a frightful tempest
assailed the fleet just as it was about to enter the port of Trapani.
Eighteen large ships and four thousand Crusaders were submerged, and
perished in the waves. Most of the leaders and soldiers lost their
arms, equipments, and horses. If one historian is to be believed, the
money received from the king of Tunis was lost in this shipwreck.

After so great a misfortune, the king of Sicily neglected no means of
succouring the Crusaders. We may believe in the generous sentiments
which he expressed upon the occasion; but there is little doubt that,
with his feelings a hope was mixed of deriving something favourable to
his projects from this deplorable circumstance. When all the leaders
were arrived, several councils were held to ascertain what remained
to be done. As every one deplored his own losses, Charles proposed a
sure means of repairing them, which was the conquest of Greece. This
was the plan he had arranged; in the first place, all the Crusaders
should pass the winter in Sicily; in the spring, the count of Poictiers
should set out for Palestine with a part of the army, the rest was to
follow Charles to Epirus, and from thence to Byzantium. This project
had something adventurous and chivalric in it, very likely to seduce
the French barons and nobles; but letters to the young king arrived
from France, in which the regents represented in strong colours the
grief and alarms of his people. Philip declared that he could not stay
in Sicily, but should immediately return to his own dominions. This
determination destroyed all Charles’s hopes; the French lords would not
abandon their young monarch, and the princes and all the leaders of
the Christian army laid aside the cross. An Italian chronicle reports
that Charles, in his vexation, confiscated to his own profit all the
vessels and all the effects which, after the late shipwreck, were
thrown upon the coasts of Sicily. He had profited by the misfortunes of
the army before Tunis, and he now enriched himself with the spoils of
his companions in arms. This act of injustice and violence completed
the dislike that most of the Crusaders had conceived for him; this was
particularly the case with the Genoese, to whom the fleet belonged in
which the Christian army had embarked.

It was, however, decided that they should resume the crusade four years
later. The two kings, the princes, and the most influential leaders,
engaged themselves by oath to embark for Syria with their troops in
the month of July of the fourth year;—a vain promise, that not one of
them was destined to keep, and which they only made then to excuse in
their own eyes the inconsistency of their conduct in this war. Edward,
who had announced his resolution of passing the winter in Sicily, and
setting out for Palestine in the spring, was the only one that did not
break his promises.

The French warriors abandoned all thoughts of the crusade; but they
were yet far from seeing the closing of that abyss of miseries which
it had opened beneath their feet. The king of Navarre died shortly
after landing at Trapani, and his wife Isabella was so deeply affected
by his death, that she immediately followed him to the tomb. Philip
set out on his return to France in the month of January, and the
young queen, who had accompanied him, became another victim of the
crusade. In crossing Calabria, whilst fording a river near Cosenza,
her horse fell, and she being pregnant, this fall caused her death.
Thus Philip pursued his journey, bearing with him the bodies of his
father, his brother, and his wife. He learnt on his march that the
count and countess of Poictiers, returning to Languedoc, had both died
in Tuscany from the effects of the contagious malady of the coast of
Africa. Passing by Viterbo, Philip witnessed the tragical end of one of
the most illustrious of his companions in arms; Henry d’Allemagne was
attacked by the sons of the earl of Leicester, pursued into a church,
and massacred at the foot of the altar. Thus, great crimes were joined
with great calamities, to add to the cruel remembrances that this
crusade was destined to leave behind it.

Philip, after crossing Mount Cenis, returned to Paris through Burgundy
and Champagne. What days of mourning for France! At the departure of
Louis IX. for the East, the whole nation had been impressed by the most
melancholy presentiments; and, alas! all these presentiments were but
too fully realized!

It was not the flag of victory, but a funeral pall that preceded the
French warriors in their march. Funereal urns, the wreck of an army
but lately so flourishing, a young sick prince, who had only escaped
by a miracle the death that had swept away his family—this was all
that came back from the crusade! The people came from all parts to meet
the melancholy train; they surrounded the young king, they strove to
approach the remains of St. Louis, and it was made evident, by their
pious propriety and their religious sadness, that the sentiments which
led them there were not such as generally precipitate the multitude
upon the steps of the masters of the earth.

On the arrival of Philip in his capital, the bones and the heart of St.
Louis were conveyed to the church of Notre Dame, where ecclesiastics
sang the hymns of the service of the dead during the whole night. On
the following day the funeral of the royal martyr was celebrated in
the church of St. Denis. In the midst of an immense assemblage of all
classes of the people, deeply affected by what they saw, the young
monarch advanced, bearing on his shoulders the mortal remains of
his father. He stopped several times on his way, and crosses, which
were placed at every station, recalled, up to the last century, this
beautiful picture of filial piety.

Louis IX. was deposited near his grandfather Philip Augustus, and his
father Louis VIII. Although he had forbidden his tomb to be ornamented,
it was covered with plates of silver, which were afterwards carried
away by the English. At a later period a more terrible revolution broke
into his tomb and scattered his ashes; but this revolution has not been
able to destroy his memory.

No, posterity will never cease to praise that passion for justice which
filled the whole life of Louis IX., that ardour in search of truth, so
rare even among the greatest kings; that love of peace, to which he
sacrificed even the glory he had acquired in arms; that solicitude for
the good of all; that tender consideration for poverty; that profound
respect for the rights of misfortune and for the lives of men:—virtues
which astonished the middle ages, and which our own times still
perceive in the descendants of so good a prince.[38]

The ascendancy which his virtue and piety gave him he only employed
in defending his people against everything that was unjust. This
ascendancy, which he preserved over his age, gave to his laws an
empire, which laws, whatever they may be, rarely obtain but with time.
A few years after his reign, provinces demanded to be united to the
crown, under the sole hope and the sole condition of enjoying the _wise
ordinances of the king, who loved justice_. Such were the conquests of
St. Louis. It is well known, that after his victories over the English
he restored Guienne to them, in spite of the advice of his barons, who
considered this act of generosity to be contrary to the interests of
the kingdom. Perhaps it only belongs to elevated minds like his to know
how much wisdom there is in the counsels of moderation! An illustrious
writer of the last age has said, when speaking of Louis IX., _that
great moderate men are rare_, and it is doubtless on that account that
the world does not understand them.

In the position in which France at that time was placed, a vulgar
genius would have fomented divisions; whereas Louis only sought to
appease them; and it was this spirit of conciliation which rendered him
the arbitrator of kings and nations, and gave him more strength and
power than could have been procured by the combinations of the wisest
policy. Among the contemporaries of St. Louis persons were not wanting
who blamed his moderation, and many who pride themselves upon being
skilful politicians blame him even now. Strange skill, which tends to
create a belief that morality is foreign to the happiness of nations,
and which cannot afford to the leaders of empires the same virtues that
God has bestowed upon man for the preservation of society!

The more we admire the reign of Louis IX. the greater is our
astonishment at his having twice interrupted the course of its
blessings, and quitted a people he rendered happy by his presence. But,
whilst beholding the passions which agitate the present generation, who
will dare to raise his voice for the purpose of accusing past ages!
If at the moment in which I write this history all Europe is moved by
the rumour of a general rising against the Mussulmans, now masters
of Byzantium;—if the most ardent disciples of the modern school of
philosophy are putting up vows for the triumph of the Gospel over
the Koran, for the deliverance of the Greeks, and the resurrection
of Athens and Lacedæmon, how can we believe that in the middle ages
princes and Christian nations would not be affected by the horrible
state of slavery of Jerusalem, and all those holy regions from which
the light first broke upon Christendom? Consistently with the character
which Louis IX. displayed in all the circumstances of his life,
how could he remain indifferent to the calamities of the Christian
colonies, which were principally peopled by Frenchmen, and which were
considered as another France,—the France of the east? We must not
forget, likewise, that the great aim of his policy was to unite the
nations of the east and west by the ties of Christianity; and that
this aim, if he had succeeded in it, would have been greatly to the
advantage of humanity. Ambition itself has been sometimes pardoned for
projects much more chimerical, and wars much more unfortunate.[39]

However it may be, we can venture to say that the captivity and death
of St. Louis in distant regions did not at all lessen the respect in
which his name and his virtues were held in Europe. Perhaps even such
extraordinary misfortunes, suffered in the name of religion and of
all that was then reverenced, added something to the splendour of the
monarchy; for the times we have seen were then far distant in which
the misfortunes of kings have only served to despoil royalty of that
which makes it respected among men. The death of Louis IX. was a great
subject of grief for the French; but with the regret which his loss
created, there was mingled, for the whole people, the thoughts of the
happy future which Louis had prepared, and for pious minds the hope of
having a guardian and a support in heaven. Very shortly the death of a
king of France was celebrated as a fresh triumph for religion,—as a
fresh glory for his country; and the anniversary of the day on which he
expired became thereafter one of the solemn festivals of the Christian
Church and of the French monarchy.

A beautiful spectacle was that canonical inquiry in which the common
father of the faithful interrogated the contemporaries of Louis IX.
upon the virtues of his life and the benefits of his reign! Frenchmen
of all classes came forward to attest, upon the Gospel, that the
monarch whose death they lamented was worthy of all the rewards of
heaven. Among them were many of his old companions in arms, who had
shared his chains in Egypt, and beheld him dying on his bed of ashes
before Tunis. The whole of Europe confirmed their religious testimony,
and repeated these words of the head of the Church:—“_House of France,
rejoice at having given to the world so great a prince; rejoice, people
of France, at having had so good a king!_”[40]

The death of Louis IX., as we have already said, had suddenly
suspended all enterprises beyond the seas. Edward only, accompanied by
the count of Brittany, his brother Edmund, and three hundred knights,
had gone into Syria at the head of a small army of five hundred
Crusaders from Friesland. All these Crusaders together only formed a
body of a thousand or twelve hundred combatants; and this was all that
reached Asia of those numberless armies that had been raised in the
West for the deliverance of the Holy Land. So feeble a reinforcement
was not calculated to inspire confidence or restore security to the
Christians of Palestine, not yet recovered from their consternation at
hearing of the retreat of the Crusaders from before Tunis, and their
return into Europe.

Most of the princes and Christian states of Syria, in the fear of being
invaded, had concluded treaties with the sultan of Cairo; many must
have hesitated at engaging in a war from which the slender succours
from Europe could allow them no hopes of great advantages, and in which
likewise they had to dread being abandoned by the Crusaders, ever eager
to return to the West. Nevertheless, the Templars and the Hospitallers,
who never missed an opportunity of fighting with the Saracens, united
themselves with Prince Edward, whose fame had preceded him into the
East. Bibars, who was then ravaging the territories of Ptolemaïs, drew
his forces off from a city which he had filled with alarm, and appeared
for a moment to have abandoned the execution of his projects.

The little army of the Christians, composed of from six to seven
thousand men, advanced upon the Mussulman territories, directing its
course towards Phœnicia, in order to re-establish the communication
that had been interrupted between the Christian cities. In this
expedition the Crusaders had much to suffer from excessive heat; many
died from indulging in fruits and honey, which the country produced
in abundance. They marched afterwards towards the city of Nazareth,
upon the walls of which they planted the standard of Christ. The
soldiers of the cross could not remember without indignation that
Bibars had completely destroyed the church of this city, consecrated to
the Virgin. Nazareth was given up to pillage, and all the Mussulmans
found in the city expiated by being put to the sword, the burning
and destruction of one of the most beautiful monuments raised by the
Christians in Syria.

After this victory, for which we cannot praise the Crusaders, the
Christian army had to combat the Mussulman troops, who were impatient
to avenge the excesses committed at Nazareth. Whether he had learnt
to respect the superiority of his enemies, or whether he had cause
to complain of the warriors of Palestine, Edward returned within the
walls of Ptolemaïs, and sought for no more contests. The frequent
excursions of the Saracens could not provoke him to take up arms;
but whilst he remained thus safe from the perils of war, he was on
the point of perishing by the hand of a Mussulman whom he had taken
into his service. Some of the chronicles of the time tell us that the
emir of Jaffa armed the hand of the assassin; others say that the
blow was directed by the sect of the Ismaëlians, who still subsisted,
notwithstanding the war declared against them by both the Tartars and
the Mamelukes.

After having thus run the danger of losing his life, Edward, cured of
his wounds, only thought of concluding a truce with Bibars; and being
recalled into England by the prayers of Henry III., whose successor he
was, he quitted the East without having done anything important for the
cause he had sworn to defend. Thus all the results of this crusade,
which had so much alarmed the Mussulmans, were reduced, on one side, to
the massacre of the unarmed population of Nazareth, and on the other,
to the vain conquest of the ruins of Carthage. Another result of this
war, and the only one it had for Europe, was to entirely discourage the
Christian warriors, and make them forget the East. After Edward, no
prince from the West ever crossed the seas to combat with the infidels
in Asia, and the crusade in which he took a part so little glorious,
was the last of those which had for object the deliverance or recovery
of the Holy Land.

Among the circumstances that produced the failure of this crusade,
history must not forget the protracted vacancy of the papal throne,
during which no voice was raised to animate the Crusaders, in which
there was no authority powerful enough, particularly after the
death of St. Louis, to direct their enterprise. After a lapse of
two years, however, the conclave chose a successor of St. Peter;
and, fortunately for the eastern Christians, the suffrages fell upon
Thibault, archdeacon of Liege, who had followed the Frisons into Asia,
and whom the intelligence of his elevation found still in Palestine.
The Christians of Syria had reason to hope that the new pontiff, for
so long a time a witness of their perils and their miseries, would
not fail to employ all his power to succour them. Thibault gave them
an assurance of it before he quitted Ptolemaïs, and in a discourse
which he addressed to the assembled people, he took for his text this
verse of the hundred and thirty-seventh Psalm: “If I forget thee, O
Jerusalem, may I myself be forgotten among men!”

The patriarch of Jerusalem, and the grand masters of the Temple and
the Hospital accompanied Gregory X. into the West. On his return,
the pontiff applied himself at once to the re-establishment of peace
in Italy and Germany. He engaged the princes, particularly the king
of France, to unite their efforts in assisting the Holy Land. Philip
contented himself with sending a few troops into the East, and with
advancing thirty-six thousand silver marks to the Pope, for which sum
he held as security all the possessions of the Templars in his kingdom.
Pisa, Genoa, and Marseilles furnished several galleys, and five hundred
warriors were embarked for Ptolemaïs, at the expense of the sovereign
pontiff.

This assistance was far from answering the hopes or the wants of the
Christian colonies. Gregory resolved to interest all Christendom in his
project, and for that purpose convoked a council at Lyons, in 1274.
This council was much more numerous and more solemn than that which
Innocent IV. had assembled thirty years before in the same city. At
this were present the patriarchs of Jerusalem and Constantinople, more
than a thousand bishops and archbishops, the envoys of the emperors
of the East and of the West, those of the kings of France and Cyprus,
and of all the princes of Europe and beyond the seas. In this numerous
assembly, no persons attracted so much attention as the Tartar princes
and ambassadors, sent by the powerful head of the Moguls, to form an
alliance with the Christians against the Mussulmans; several of these
Tartar princes received baptism from the hands of the Pope, and
Christians who were witnesses of this ceremony saw in it an assured
pledge of the Divine promises.

All admired the power of God who had chosen the instruments of his
designs from remote and little known regions; the crowd of the faithful
looked upon the supreme head of the hordes of Tartary as another
Cyrus, whom Providence had charged with the destruction of Babylon
and the deliverance of Jerusalem. At the last sitting, the Council of
Lyons decreed that a new crusade should be undertaken, and that during
ten years a tenth should be levied upon all ecclesiastical property.
Palæologus, who at length submitted to the Latin church, promised to
send troops for the deliverance of the heritage of Christ; the Pope
recognized Rodolph of Hapsbourg as emperor of the West, upon condition
that he would go into Palestine at the head of an army.

But notwithstanding the grand spectacle of such a council, the
decisions and the exhortations of the Pope and the prelates could not
arouse the enthusiasm of the faithful, which was no longer anything,
to borrow an expression from Scripture, “but the smoking remains of
a burnt cloth.” Gregory X. had succeeded in re-establishing peace
among the Italian republics, and in terminating all the discords of
Germany relative to the succession to the empire: no war interfered
with the crusade; but the minds of both princes and nations had taken
a fresh direction. We still possess a written document of this period,
which, doubtless, obtained the approbation if not the encouragement
of the pope, and which appears to us well calculated to throw a light
upon the spirit of the age, and show us what was then the general
opinion of expeditions to the East. In this document, which will be
considered whimsical, at least in its form, the author, Humbert de
Romanis, endeavours to revive the zeal of Christians for the holy
war, and, while deploring the indifference of his contemporaries,
he points out eight obstacles to the effects of his preaching: 1st.
_A sinful habit_; 2nd. _The dread of fatigue_; 3rd. _Repugnance to
quit their native country_; 4th. _An excessive love of family_; 5th.
_The evil discourses of men_; 6th. _A weakness of mind that creates
a belief that every thing is impossible_; 7th. _Bad examples_; 8th.
_A faith without warmth_. To all these motives for indifference the
author might have added other reasons drawn from the policy and the
new interests of Europe; but without allowing himself to be stopped by
so many obstacles, the intrepid defender of the crusades, proceeding
always by enumerations and categories, hastens to denote seven powerful
passions, which, according to him, ought to cause the partisans of
the holy to triumph; these reasons were: 1st. _Zeal for the glory of
God_; 2nd. _Zeal for the Christian faith_; 3rd. _Brotherly charity_;
4th. _Devotional respect for the Holy Land_; 5th. _The war commenced
by the Mussulmans_; 6th. _The example of the first Crusaders_; 7th.
_The blessings of the Church_. After these enumerations, Humbert de
Romanis repeats the objections that were made in his time against
undertaking crusades. Some said that wars, of whatever kind they might
be, only served to promote the shedding of blood, and that there were
quite enough of those that could not be avoided, and of those that
people were obliged to make in self-defence; others said that it was
tempting God to quit a land in which his will had caused us to be
born, and in which his goodness heaped blessings upon us, to go into
a country which God had given to other nations, and in which we were
constantly abandoned by him to all the miseries of exile. It was
further said, that it was not permissible to invade the territories of
the Saracens, that there was no more reason for pursuing the Mussulmans
than the Jews, that the wars made against them would never effect
their conversion, and in short, that this war did not appear to be
agreeable to God, since he permitted so many misfortunes to overwhelm
the Crusaders.

Humbert de Romanis, in his book, answers all these and many other
objections; but these objections themselves were founded upon the
spirit of the age, which could not be changed by reasoning. He in vain
repeated that the Holy Land originally belonged to the Christians, and
that they had the right to endeavour to reconquer it; that the vine of
the Lord ought to be defended by the sword against those who wished to
root it up; that if they extirpated the brambles from a barren soil,
they were much more strongly bound to drive from a holy land a rude
and barbarous nation. He in vain repeated what had been so often said
before, that the misfortunes of the crusades did not happen because
those crusades were displeasing to God, but because it was God’s will
to punish the Crusaders, and try their constancy and faith. All this
display of ecclesiastical erudition and argumentation persuaded nobody;
not because people were more enlightened than they had been some years
before, but because they entertained other thoughts: similar discourses
would have succeeded admirably in the preceding century, when addressed
to dominant passions; but they produced no effect when addressed to
indifference.

This European indifference was fatal to the Christian colonies of the
East; it gave them up without defence to the mercy of an enemy who
every day became more powerful, and whose fanaticism was inflamed by
victory. On the other hand, fresh symptoms of decay, and new signs of
approaching ruin, were observable in the confederation of the Franks
of Syria. All those petty principalities, all those cities scattered
along the Syrian coasts were shared among them; and all the passions
which the spirit of rivalry gives birth to became the auxiliaries of
the Saracens. Every one of these petty states, in a constant state
of fear, eagerly purchased a few days of peace, or a few months of
existence, by treaties with Bibars, treaties in which the common honour
and interests of the Christians were almost always sacrificed. The
sultan of Cairo did not disdain to conclude a treaty of alliance with
a single city, or even with a town; and nothing is more curious than
to see figuring in these acts of policy, on the one side the sovereign
of Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, and twenty other provinces; and on the
other a little city like Sidon[41] or Tortosa, with its fields, its
orchards, and its mills: a deplorable contrast, which must have made
the Christians feel the extent of their humiliation, and proved to them
all they had to fear. In all these treaties it was the Mussulman policy
to promote division among the Franks, and to hold them in a state of
dependence,[42] never considering them as allies, but as vassals,
farmers or tributaries.

Such was the peace enjoyed by the Christian states in Syria; and
a further matter to be deplored was, that there were then three
pretenders to the kingdom of Jerusalem:—the king of Cyprus, the king
of Sicily, and Mary of Antioch, who was descended from the fourth
daughter of Isabella, the wife of Amaury. Parties disputed, and even
fought for a kingdom half destroyed; or rather they contended for the
disgrace of ruining it entirely, and giving it up, rent by discord, to
the domination of the Saracens.

Bibars, in the meanwhile, steadily pursued the course of his conquests;
every day fame spread abroad an account of some fresh triumph; at one
time he re-entered Cairo, dragging in his train a king of Nubia, whom
he had just conquered; at another, he returned from Armenia, whence he
brought thirty thousand horses and ten thousand children of both sexes.
These accounts spread terror among the Christian cities, a terror that
was very little mitigated by their treaties with the sultan of Egypt;
no one could tell what might be the next conquest Bibars contemplated,
and every city was trembling lest it should be the next object of his
ambition or his fury, when the death of this fierce conqueror afforded
the Christians a few moments of security and joy.

The end of Bibars is related after various manners; we will follow the
account of the historian Ibn-Ferat, with whose expressions even we
shall sometimes make free. Bibars was about to set out for Damascus,
to fight the Tartars in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates; but before
his departure he demanded an extraordinary impost. The imaun Mohyeddin
Almoury addressed remonstrances to him on the subject; but the sultan
replied: “Oh! my master, I will abolish this tax when I shall have
conquered our enemies.” When Bibars had triumphed over the Tartars, he
wrote in the following terms to the chief of the divan at Damascus:
“We will not dismount from our horse until thou hast levied an impost
of two hundred thousand dirhems upon Damascus, one of three hundred
thousand upon its territories, one of three hundred thousand upon
its towns, and one of ten hundred thousand dirhems upon the southern
provinces.” Thus the joy created by the victory of Bibars was changed
into sadness, and the people prayed for the death of the sultan.
Complaints were carried to the cheick Mohyeddin, a pious and respected
man;[43] and scarcely was the levy of the tribute begun when Bibars was
razed from the roll of the living—he died poisoned.

The Arabian historians place Bibars among the great princes of the
dynasty of the Baharite Mamelukes. He was originally sold as a slave,
and although he only lived among soldiers, a penetrating sagacity of
mind supplied the place of education. When afterwards, he had become
familiar with war, and had been cast among the factions of the army,
he had acquired all the knowledge that was necessary to enable him to
reign over the Mamelukes. The quality which was of most service to
him in the career of his ambition was his incredible activity; during
the seventeen years of his reign, he did not allow himself one day of
repose; he was present, almost at the same time, in Syria, in Egypt,
and upon the banks of the Euphrates: the chronicles relate that he was
frequently perambulating the streets of Damascus, whilst his courtiers
were awaiting the moment of his waking at the gates of the palace of
Cairo. As two sultans of Egypt had perished beneath his hands, and as
he had arrived at empire by means of violent revolutions, that which
he most dreaded was the influence of his own example; all those whose
ambition he feared, or whose fidelity he doubted, were immediately
sacrificed. The most simple communications between man and man were
sufficient to alarm his fierce and suspicious temper; if oriental
historians may be credited, during the reign of Bibars, friends shunned
each other in the streets, and no man durst enter into the house of
another. When it was important to him to conceal his designs, to cast
a veil over his proceedings, or himself to avoid the public eye, woe
to him who should divine his thought, pronounce his name, or salute
him on his way. Severe with his soldiers, a flatterer with his emirs,
entertaining no repugnance for artifice, preferring violence, sporting
with treaties and oaths, practising a dissimulation that nobody could
penetrate, possessed by an avarice that made him pitiless in the
levying of tributes; having never retreated before an enemy, before
an obstacle, or before a crime, his genius and character seemed made
for the government, which he had in some sort founded, a monstrous
government, which sustained itself by vices and excesses, and which
could not possibly have subsisted in conjunction with moderation and
virtue.

His enemies and his subjects trembled equally before him; they trembled
still around that litter which transported his remains from Damascus to
Cairo. But so many excesses, so many violences, so many triumphs, which
only ministered to his personal ambition, were not able to fix the
crown in his family; his two sons only ascended the throne to descend
from it again. Kelaoun, the bravest of the emirs, soon usurped the
sovereign power; a uniform line of succession to the throne was not at
all likely to be preserved in an army constantly exposed to sedition.
Every Mameluke believed himself born for empire, and in this republic
of slaves it appeared permissible for every one to dream of tyranny. A
thing almost incredible,—that which appeared most calculated to ruin
this band of turbulent soldiery, was precisely that which saved it;
weakness or incapacity could never support itself long upon the throne,
and amidst the tumult of factions, it almost always happened that the
most brave and the most able was chosen to direct the government, and
lead in war.

Bibars had commenced the ruin of the Christians; Kelaoun was
destined to complete it. In the West, Gregory in vain prosecuted the
preparations, or rather the preachings of the crusade; he several times
renewed his intreaties to Rodolph of Hapsburg, but Rodolph had an
empire to preserve; it was useless for the pope to threaten to deprive
him of his crown; the new emperor saw much less danger for him in the
anger of the sovereign pontiff than in an expedition which would lead
him so far from his states. At length Gregory died, without having been
able to fulfil the promises he had made to the Christians of the East.
Palestine received, from time to time, some succours from Europe; but
these succours, scarcely ever arriving seasonably, appeared less likely
to increase than to compromise its safety. The king of Sicily, who had
caused himself to be proclaimed king of Jerusalem, sent some soldiers
and a governor to Ptolemaïs; he was preparing to make a formidable
expedition into Syria,[44] and his ambition, perhaps, might, in this
circumstance, have been serviceable to the cause of the Christians, if
a revolution had not suddenly put an end to his projects.

The discontent of the people in his states, particularly in Sicily,
continually increased. The people had been burdened with a heavy tax
for the last crusade, and the publication of a new one was received
with many murmurs; the enemies of Charles saw nothing in the assumption
of the cross but a signal for violence and brigandage; it is under this
sacred banner, they said, that he is accustomed to shed innocent blood:
they further remembered that the conquest of Naples had been made under
the standard of the cross. At length the signal of revolt being given,
eight thousand Frenchmen were immolated to the manes of Conradin, and
the Sicilian vespers completed the destruction of all Charles’s Eastern
projects.

Kelaoun from that time had it in his power to attack the Christians;
but busied in establishing his authority among the Mamelukes, and in
repulsing the Tartars, who had advanced towards the Euphrates, he
consented to conclude a truce with the Franks of Ptolemaïs. It may
plainly be perceived by this treaty, which the Arabian authors have
preserved, what were the designs of the sultans of Cairo, and the
extent of the ascendancy they assumed over their feeble enemies.[45]
The Christians engaged, in the event of any prince of the Franks
making an expedition into Asia, to warn the infidels of the coming of
Christian armies from the West. This was at the same time signing a
dishonourable condition, and renouncing all hopes of a crusade.

The armies of the West, besides, were fighting for other interests than
those of the Holy Land, and there was no reason to believe they would
be seen in Asia for a length of time. Most of the princes of Europe
at that time never bestowed a thought upon the Mussulmans or their
victories; such princes or states as had any interests to guard in the
East,[46] not only allied themselves without scruple with the sultan of
Egypt, but promised by treaties, and swore upon the Gospel, to declare
themselves the enemies of all the Christian powers that should attack
the states of their Mussulman ally.

Thus all these treaties, dictated sometimes by ambition and avarice,
and sometimes by fear, raised every day a new barrier between the
Christians of the East and those of the West. Besides, these treaties
were no checks upon the sultan of Cairo, who always found some pretext
for breaking them, when war presented more advantages than peace.
It was thus with the fortress of Margat, situated upon the river
Eleuctera, in the neighbourhood of Tripoli. The Hospitallers who
guarded this castle were accused of making incursions upon the lands
of the Mussulmans; and this accusation, which was not perhaps without
foundation, was soon followed by the siege of the place. The towers and
ramparts for a long time resisted the shock of the machines of war; the
garrison repulsed every attack; but whilst they were fighting upon the
walls, and at the foot of the walls, miners were digging away the earth
from beneath them. At length the fortress, undermined on all sides, was
ready to fall to pieces at the first signal. The Hospitallers made an
honourable capitulation, and Margat opened its gates to the Mussulman
army.

Upon the seacoast, between Margat and Tortosa, stood another castle,
to which a Frank nobleman had retired, whom some of the Arabian
chroniclers call the sieur de Telima, and others, the sieur Barthélemi.
This Frank lord never ceased ravaging the lands of his neighbourhood,
and every day returned home to his fortress loaded with the spoils
of the Saracens. Kelaoun was desirous of attacking the castle of the
sieur Barthélemi, but thinking it impregnable, he wrote to the count
of Tripoli,—“It is thou who hast built, or hast allowed to be built,
this castle; evil be to thee, evil be to thy capital, evil be to thy
people, if it be not promptly demolished.”[47] The count of Tripoli was
the more alarmed at these menaces, from the Mussulman troops being, at
the moment he received the letter, in his territories: he offered the
seigneur Barthélemi considerable lands in exchange for his castle; he
made him the most brilliant promises and offers, but all in vain. At
length the son of Barthélemi interfered in the negotiation, and set
out to implore the compassion of the sultan of Cairo. The enraged old
man flew after his son, overtook him in the city of Ptolemaïs, and
poniarded him before the assembled people. This parricide disgusted
all the Christians; and Barthélemi was at last abandoned by his own
soldiers, who held his crime in great horror. The castle, which was
left unprotected, was shortly after demolished. From that time the
sieur Barthélemi became the most inveterate enemy of the Christians;
and, retired among the infidels, was constantly employed in associating
them with his vengeance, and in urging the destruction of the Christian
cities.

His pitiless hatred had but too many opportunities of being satisfied.
The sultan of Cairo pursued the war against the Christians, and
everything seemed to favour his enterprizes. He had for a long time
entertained the project of gaining possession of Laodicea, whose port
rivalled that of Alexandria; but the citadel of that city, surrounded
by the waters of the sea, was inaccessible; an earthquake, which shook
the towers of the fortress, facilitated his conquest of it. The castle
of Carac and some other forts, built on the coast of Phœnicia, fell
into the hands of the Mussulmans. After having thus laid open all the
avenues to Tripoli, the sultan turned the whole of his attention to
the siege of that city. Neither the faith of treaties, nor the recent
submissions of Bohemond, were able to retard for a moment the fall of
a flourishing city: no Christian city, no prince of Palestine offered
the least assistance to Tripoli. Such indeed was the spirit of division
that always reigned among the Franks, that the Templars, in conjunction
with the seigneur de Giblet, had entertained the project of introducing
some Christian soldiers into Bohemond’s city, and taking it by
surprise. They were not able, it is true, to execute their design; but
what evils must not these odious jealousies, these black treacheries,
have brought upon the feeble remains of the Christian colonies!

A formidable army appeared before the walls of Tripoli, and a great
number of machines were erected against the ramparts: after a siege of
thirty-five days, the Mussulmans penetrated into the city, fire and
sword in hand. Seven thousand Christians fell under the arms of the
conqueror; the women and children were dragged away into slavery, and
the terrified crowd vainly sought an asylum from the blood-thirsty
Mamelukes in the island of St. Nicholas. Aboulfeda relates, that having
occasion to go to that island, a few days after the taking of Tripoli,
he found it covered with dead bodies. Some of the inhabitants having
succeeded in getting on board ships, fled away from their desolate
country; but the sea drove them back again upon the shore, where they
were massacred by the Mussulmans. Not only the population of Tripoli
was almost exterminated, but the sultan gave orders that the city
should be burnt and demolished. The port of Tripoli attracted a great
part of the commerce of the Mediterranean; the city contained more than
four thousand silk-looms; its palaces were admired, its towers and its
fortifications appeared impregnable. So many sources of prosperity,
all that could cause peace to nourish or serve for defence in war,
all perished under the flame, the axe, and the hammer! The principal
aim of the Mussulman policy in this war, was to destroy all that the
Christians had done; to leave no traces of their power upon the coasts
of Syria; nothing which could afterwards attract thither the princes
and warriors of the West, nothing that could yield them the means of
maintaining themselves there if ever they should be tempted again to
unfurl their standards in the East.

Ptolemaïs, which remained neuter in this cruel war, learnt the fall
and destruction of a Christian city from some fugitives, who, having
escaped the sword of the Mussulmans, came to intreat an asylum within
its walls. From this sad intelligence, it might easily predict the
misfortunes that awaited it. Ptolemaïs was then the capital of the
Christian colonies, and the most considerable city of Syria. Most of
the Franks, upon being driven from the other cities of Palestine, had
taken refuge there, bringing with them all their portable wealth. In
its port anchored all the warlike fleets that came from the West, with
the richest trading vessels from most countries of the world. The city
had not less increased in extent than population; it was constructed of
square-cut stones; all the walls of the houses rose to an equal height,
and a platform or terrace surmounted most of the buildings.[48] The
interior of the principal houses was ornamented with paintings, and
they received light by the means of glass windows, which was at that
time an extraordinary luxury. In the public places, coverings of silk
or transparent stuffs screened the inhabitants from the ardours of the
sun. Between the two ramparts which bounded the city on the east, were
built castles and palaces, the residences of the great; the artizans
and traders occupied the interior of the city. Among the princes and
nobles who had mansions in Ptolemaïs, were the king of Jerusalem,
his brothers and his family, the princes of Galilee and Antioch, the
lieutenants of France and Sicily, the duke of Cæsarea, the counts
of Tripoli and Jaffa, the lords of Barouth, Tyre, Tiberias, Ibelin,
Arsaph, &c. We read in an old chronicle that all these magnates were
accustomed to walk in the public places, wearing crowns of gold like
kings, whilst the vestments of their numerous trains glittered with
gold and precious stones. Every day was passed in festivity, spectacles
or tournaments; whilst the port was a mart of exchange for the
treasures of the East and the West, exhibiting at all times an animated
picture of commerce and industry.

Contemporary history deplores with severity the corruption of morals
that prevailed in Ptolemaïs, the crowds of strangers bringing with them
the vices of all countries. Effeminacy and luxury pervaded every class,
the clergy themselves being unable to escape the general contagion:
the inhabitants of Ptolemaïs were esteemed the most voluptuous
and dissolute of all the nations of Syria. Ptolemaïs was not only
the richest city of Syria, it was further supposed to be the best
fortified. St. Louis, during his abode in Palestine, had neglected
nothing to repair and increase its fortifications. On the land side,
a double wall surrounded the city, commanded at distances by lofty
battlemented towers; and a wide and deep ditch prevented access to the
ramparts. Towards the sea, the city was defended by a fortress built at
the entrance of the port, by the castle of the temple on the south, and
by the tower called the King’s Tower, on the east.

Ptolemaïs appears then to have possessed much better means of defence
than at the period at which it stood out for three years against all
the forces of Europe. No power could have subdued it if it had been
inhabited by true citizens, and not by foreigners, pilgrims, and
traders, at all times ready to transport themselves and their wealth
from one place to another. The persons who represented the king of
Naples, the lieutenants of the king of Cyprus, the French, the
English, the pope’s legate, the patriarch of Jerusalem, the prince of
Antioch, the three military orders, the Venetians, the Genoese, the
Pisans, the Armenians, the Tartars, had all and each their separate
quarter, their jurisdiction, their tribunals, their magistrates—all
independent of each other, and all enjoying the right of sovereignty.
All these quarters were as so many different cities, opposed to each
other by customs, by language, by manners, and above all, by rivalries
and jealousies. It was impossible to preserve order in a city in which
so many sovereigns made laws, which had no uniform government, and in
which the crime pursued in one part, was protected in another. Thus all
the passions were without a check, and often gave birth to sanguinary
and disgraceful scenes: in addition to the quarrels that took their
rise in the country, there was not a feud in Europe, particularly in
Italy, that was not felt in Ptolemaïs. The discords of the Guelphs and
the Ghibelines were here carried on with warmth, and the rivalries of
Venice and Genoa had caused torrents of blood to flow. Each nation had
fortifications in the quarter it inhabited, against the others; and the
churches even were fortified. At the entrance to each division was a
fortress, with gates and iron chains; it was plainly to be perceived
that all these means of defence had been employed less for the purpose
of stopping the progress of an enemy, than as a barrier against
neighbours and rivals.

The leaders of all the quarters and the principal inhabitants of the
city sometimes assembled; but they seldom, agreed, and were at all
times mistrustful of each other: these assemblies never laid down any
settled plan of conduct, never established any wholesome fixed rule,
and, above all, never showed the least foresight.

The city at the same time demanded succours from the West, and
solicited a truce with the Saracens. When a treaty was concluded, no
one had sufficient power to secure its observance; on the contrary,
every one had it in his power to violate it, and thus bring upon the
city all the ills that this violation would produce.

After the taking of Tripoli, the sultan of Cairo menaced the city
of Ptolemaïs; nevertheless, whether he dreaded the despair of the
inhabitants, or thought that the favourable moment was not yet
arrived, he yielded to their solicitations, and renewed a truce with
them for two years, two months, two weeks, two days, and two hours.
According to a chronicle, the pope’s legate disapproved of the treaty,
and caused some Mussulman traders, who came to Ptolemaïs, to be
insulted: the Templars and the other military orders were desirous
of making reparation to the sultan of Egypt; but the legate opposed
them, and threatened to excommunicate all who should have the least
intercourse with the infidels.[49]

An Arabian author assigns another motive for the violences committed
against the Mussulmans. He relates that the wife of a rich inhabitant
of Ptolemaïs, being deeply enamoured of a young Mussulman, had
appointed a meeting with him in one of the gardens that surround the
city; the husband, warned of this outrage against conjugal fidelity,
gathers together some friends, goes out from Ptolemaïs with them,[50]
surprises his wife and her seducer, and immolates them both to his
injured honour. Some Mussulmans are drawn to the spot; the Christians
come up in still greater numbers; the quarrel becomes angry and
general; and every Mussulman is massacred.

These violences, which fame did not fail to exaggerate whilst narrating
them, might give the sultan of Egypt a pretext for renewing the
war; and the Christians, who plainly perceived their new perils,
implored the assistance of the sovereign pontiff. The pope engaged
Venice to furnish twenty-five galleys, and this fleet transported to
Ptolemaïs a troop of sixteen hundred men, levied in haste in Italy.
This reinforcement, which was sent to the inhabitants of Palestine
for their defence, provoked their ruin; the soldiers of the Holy See,
levied among adventurers and vagabonds, gave themselves up to all
sorts of excesses. Having no regular pay, they plundered Christians
and Mussulmans indiscriminately; at last, this undisciplined troop
marched out of the city in arms, and made an incursion upon the lands
of the Saracens. Everything was laid waste on their passage; towns and
villages were pillaged, the inhabitants insulted, and many of them
massacred. The sultan of Cairo sent ambassadors to the Christians
to complain of these outrages, committed in a time of peace. On
the arrival of the Mussulman envoys several councils were held in
Ptolemaïs. Opinions were at first divided; some were willing to take
the part of those who had broken the truce; others thought it more
just and prudent to give satisfaction to the sultan, and solicit the
continuation of the treaty. In the end, it was determined to send a
deputation to Cairo, commissioned to make excuses and offer presents.
Upon being admitted to an audience of Kelaoun, the deputation alleged
that the offences had been committed by some soldiers who had come
from the West, and in no case by the inhabitants of Ptolemaïs. The
deputies, in the name of their city, offered to punish the authors of
the disorders; but their submission and prayers produced no effect upon
the sultan, who reproached them severely with making a jest of the
faith of treaties, and with giving an asylum to disturbers of peace and
foes to the laws of nations. He was the more inflexible, from thinking
the opportunity a favourable one for carrying out his projects; he was
aware that no crusade was in preparation in Europe, and he knew that
all the succour from the West was reduced to this band of adventurers
who had just broken the truce. Kelaoun sent back the ambassadors,
threatening the city of Ptolemaïs with the whole weight of his anger:
his orders were already given for preparations for war throughout all
his provinces.

Immediately after the return of the ambassadors[51] a grand council
was called, at which were present the patriarch of Jerusalem, John de
Gresli, who commanded for the king of France, Messire Oste de Granson
for the king of England, the grand masters of the Temple and the
Hospital, the principal persons of the city, and a great number of
citizens and pilgrims. When the deputies had rendered an account of
their mission, and repeated the threats of the sultan, the patriarch
addressed the assembly; his virtues, his gray hairs, his zeal for the
cause of the Christians, all inspired confidence and respect. This
venerable prelate exhorted all who heard him to arm themselves for the
defence of the city, to remember that they were Christians, and that
it was their duty to die for the cause of Christ; he conjured them to
forget their discords, to have no other enemies but the Mussulmans, and
to show themselves worthy of the holy cause for which they were about
to fight. His eloquence awakened the generous feelings of his audience,
and all swore to obey the exhortations of the patriarch: happy would
it have been for the city of Ptolemaïs if its inhabitants and its
defenders had preserved the same dispositions and the same enthusiasm
amidst the perils and mischances of war!

They asked for succour in all quarters; a few pilgrims arrived from
the West, and a few warriors from the isles of the Mediterranean: the
king of Cyprus landed with five hundred men. These new auxiliaries and
all who were able to bear arms in the city, amounted to nine hundred
horsemen and ten thousand foot soldiers. They were divided into four
bodies, charged with the defence of the towers and the ramparts. The
first of these divisions was under the command of Oste de Granson and
John de Gresli, the one with the English and the Picards, the other
with the French; the second division was commanded by the king of
Cyprus, in conjunction with the grand master of the Teutonic order;
the third by the grand master of St. John, and the grand master of the
knights of Canterbury; the fourth by the grand masters of the Temple
and of St. Lazarus: a council of eight leaders was to govern the city
during the siege.

The Mussulmans were preparing for the war in all quarters; everything
was in motion from the banks of the Nile to those of the Euphrates.
The sultan Kelaoun having fallen sick on leaving Cairo, sent before
him seven principal emirs, each having four thousand horse and twenty
thousand foot under his command. On their arrival upon the territories
of Ptolemaïs, gardens, country-houses, the vines which covered the
hills—everything was destroyed. The sight of the conflagration which
arose on all sides, the distracted crowd of the inhabitants of the
neighbourhood, who fled from their homes, with their goods, their
flocks, and their families, warned Ptolemaïs of the execution of the
threats and the sinister projects of the Saracens: there were several
battles fought on the plain, but nothing remarkable or decisive; the
Mussulmans waited the arrival of the sultan to commence the labours of
the siege.

In the meanwhile, Kelaoun was still detained in Egypt by sickness,
and feeling his end approach, the sultan sent for his son and his
principal emirs; he recommended to the latter, to serve his son as
they had served himself; and to the former, to follow up the war
against the Christians without any intermission, conjuring him not
to grant his remains the honour of sepulture before he had conquered
the city of Ptolemaïs. Chalil swore to accomplish the last wishes of
his father; and when Kelaoun had closed his eyes, the ulemas and the
imauns assembled in the chapel in which his remains were deposited,
and read during the whole night verses from the Koran, never ceasing
to invoke their prophet against the disciples of Christ. Chalil did
not delay setting forward on his march with his army. The Franks hoped
that the death of Kelaoun would give birth to some disorders among
the Mamelukes; but hatred for the Christians was a sufficient bond of
union for the Mussulman soldiers; the siege even of Ptolemaïs, the hope
of annihilating a Christian city, stifled all the germs of discord,
and consolidated the power of Chalil, whom they proclaimed beforehand
the conqueror of the Franks, and the _pacificator of the Mussulman
religion_.

The sultan arrived before Ptolemaïs; his army covering a space of
several leagues, from the sea to the mountains. More than three
hundred machines of war were ready to batter the ramparts of the city.
Aboulfeda, who was present at this siege, speaks of one of these
machines which a hundred chariots were scarcely sufficient to transport.

This formidable preparation spread consternation among the inhabitants
of Ptolemaïs. The grand master of the templars, despairing of the
defence or of the salvation of the city, assembled the leaders to
consult if there were any means of renewing the truce, and thus
escaping inevitable ruin.[52] Repairing to the tent of the sultan,
he demanded peace of him; and seeking to produce an effect upon his
mind, he exaggerated the strength of Ptolemaïs; the sultan, dreading
doubtless the difficulties of the siege, and hoping to find another
opportunity of making himself master of the city, consented to a truce
upon condition that every inhabitant should pay him a Venetian denier.
The grand master on his return convoked an assembly of the people in
the church of the Holy Cross, and laid before them the conditions the
sultan placed upon the conclusion of a fresh truce. His advice was,
that they should comply with these conditions, provided there were
no other means of saving Ptolemaïs. Scarcely had he expressed his
opinion, when the multitude rushed in in fury, uttering loud cries of
_treachery_! and very nearly did the grand master expiate on the spot
his foresight and zeal for the salvation of the city. From that time
the only thought of this generous warrior was to die arms in hand for
an ungrateful and frivolous people, incapable of repelling war by war,
and not enduring to be saved by peace.

The presence of the sultan had redoubled the ardour of the Mussulman
troops. From the day of his arrival the siege was prosecuted with
incredible vigour. The army of the besiegers amounted to sixty thousand
horse and a hundred and forty thousand foot, who constantly relieved
each other, and left the besieged not a moment of repose. The machines
hurled stones and enormous pieces of wood, the fall of which shook the
palaces and houses of the city to their foundation. A shower of arrows,
darts, fire-pots, and leaden balls was poured night and day upon the
ramparts and towers. In the first assaults, the Christians killed a
great number of the infidels who approached the walls with arrows and
stones; they made many sorties, in one of which they penetrated to the
tents of the Saracens. Being at length repulsed, some of them fell
into the hands of the Mussulmans, and the Syrian horsemen, who had
fastened the heads of the vanquished to the necks of their horses,
went to display before the sultan of Cairo the barbarous trophies of a
dearly-bought victory.

Danger at first united all the inhabitants of Ptolemaïs, and animated
them with the same sentiments. In the early combats nothing could equal
their ardour; they were sustained by the expectation of receiving
succours from the West, and they hoped, also, that some advantages
gained over the Saracens would force the besiegers to retreat; but in
proportion as these hopes vanished, their zeal diminished; most of them
were incapable of supporting lengthened fatigue; the sight of a peril
which unceasingly returned exhausted their courage; the defenders of
the ramparts perceived that their numbers were lessened daily; the port
was covered with Christians departing from the city, and bearing their
treasures with them. The example of those who thus fled completed the
discouragement of those who remained; and in a city which numbered a
hundred thousand inhabitants, and which, at the commencement of the
siege, had furnished nearly twenty thousand warriors, only twelve
thousand could at length be mustered under arms.

To desertion, another evil was soon added, which was dissension among
the leaders; several of them disapproved of the measures that were
adopted for the defence of the city, and because their opinions did not
prevail in the council, they remained inactive, forgetful of the perils
and evils which threatened both the city and themselves.

On the fourth day of May, after the siege had lasted nearly a month,
the sultan of Cairo gave the signal for an assault. From daybreak,
all the drums of the army, placed upon three hundred camels, spread a
fearful and stunning noise. The most formidable of the machines of war
were employed in battering the ramparts towards the gate and tower of
St. Antony, on the east side of the city. This post was guarded by the
soldiers of the king of Cyprus; the Mussulmans planted their ladders
at the foot of the walls; the defence was not less spirited than the
attack; the conflict lasted during the whole day, and night alone
forced the Saracens to retreat. After this severe struggle, the king
of Cyprus became more anxious for safety than glory, and determined
to abandon a city which he had now no hopes of saving. He retired with
his troop in the evening, under the pretence of taking some necessary
repose, and, confiding the post of peril to the Teutonic knights,
promised to return with daylight; but when the sun arose, the king of
Cyprus had embarked with all his knights and three thousand soldiers.
What were the surprise and indignation of the Christian warriors at the
news of this dastardly desertion! “Would to heaven,” says the author of
an account that lies before us,[53]—“would to heaven that a whirlwind
had arisen, had submerged these base fugitives, and that they had sunk
like lead to the bottom of the sea!”

On the morrow, the Mussulmans gave a fresh assault; covered by their
long bucklers, they advanced in good order towards their machines,
carrying a vast number of ladders. The Christians defended the approach
to the walls for some time; but when the besiegers perceived that the
towers, occupied on the preceding day by the Cypriots, were abandoned,
their audacity increased, and they made incredible efforts to fill up
the ditch, by casting into it stones, earth, and the carcases of their
dead horses. Contemporary historians relate a circumstance of this part
of the siege to which it is very difficult to give credit: a troop of
sectaries, who were called Chages, followed the army of the Mamelukes;
the devotion of these sectaries consisted in suffering all sorts of
privations, and even in immolating themselves for the sake of Islamism:
the sultan ordered them to fill up the ditch; they filled it up with
their living bodies, and the Mussulman cavalry marched over them, to
gain the foot of the walls![54]

The besiegers fought with fury; some planted their ladders and mounted
in crowds to the ramparts; whilst others continued to batter the walls
with the rams, and brought every available instrument into play to
demolish them. At length a large breach opened a passage into the
city, and this breach soon became the scene of a bloody and obstinate
contest. Stones and arrows were abandoned, they now fought man to man,
with lance, sword, and mace. The multitude of Saracens increased every
instant, whilst no fresh succours were received by the Christians.
After a long and brave resistance, the defenders of the rampart, worn
out with fatigue and overwhelmed by numbers, were obliged to retreat
into the city; the Saracens rushed forward in pursuit of them, and,
what is scarcely to be believed, most of the inhabitants remained
idle spectators, not because their courage was subdued by the sight
of danger, but because the spirit of rivalry and jealousy was not
stifled even by the feelings of a public and general calamity. “When
the news of the entrance of the Saracens [we borrow the expressions
of a contemporary historian] was spread through the city, many of the
citizens, from malice towards each other, entertained not near so much
pity for the common calamity as they ought to have done, and took no
account of what might happen to them, thinking in their hearts that
the sultan would do them no harm, because they had not consented to
the violation of the truce.” In their infatuation they preferred owing
their safety to the clemency of the conqueror, rather than to the
bravery of the Christian warriors;[55] far from lending assistance to
their neighbours, every one rejoiced in secret at their losses; the
principal leaders of each quarter, or of each nation, were sparing of
their soldiers, not in order to preserve their means of contending
with the Saracens, but for the sake of having more empire in the city,
and of husbanding their strength, so as to be on a future day the most
powerful and formidable in the public dissensions.

True bravery, however, did not allow itself to be misled by such base
passions; the troops of the Temple and the Hospital were found wherever
danger called them. William de Clermont, marshal of the Hospitallers,
hastened with his knights to the spot where peril was most imminent and
the carnage the greatest. He met a crowd of Christians flying before
their enemies; this brave warrior checked their flight and reanimated
their courage, rushing among the Saracens, and cutting down all that
came in his way; the Mussulmans, says an old chronicle, “fled away
at his approach, like sheep before a wolf.” Then most of those who
had turned their backs on the enemy returned to the fight; the shock
was terrible, the slaughter frightful: towards evening the trumpets
of the Saracens sounded a retreat, and all who had escaped from the
swords of the Christians retired in disorder through the breach they
had made. This unexpected advantage had a wonderful effect upon the
spirits of the besieged. Such as had taken no part in the contest, but
remained quietly in their dwellings, began to fear that they should
be accused of betraying the Christian cause. They set forward, with
banners displayed, and directed their course towards the gate of St.
Antony. The sight of the field of battle, still covered with traces
of carnage, must have awakened in them some generous feelings, and if
they had not exhibited their bravery, their brother warriors, stretched
upon the earth, who implored them to help them and dress their wounds,
at least offered them an opportunity of exercising their humanity. The
wounded were attended to, the dead were buried, and they then set about
repairing the walls and placing the machines: the whole of the night
was employed in preparing means of defence for the day which was to
follow.

Before sunrise the next morning, a general assembly was convoked in the
house of the Hospitallers. Sadness was depicted on every countenance;
they had lost two thousand Christian warriors in the battle of the
preceding day; there now were only seven thousand combatants left in
the city; these were not enough to defend the towers and the ramparts;
they were no longer sustained by the hope of conquering their enemies;
the future presented nothing but one terrible prospect of perils and
calamities. When all were met, the patriarch of Jerusalem addressed
the melancholy assembly. The venerable prelate directed no reproaches
against them who had not assisted in the fight of the preceding day;
the past must be forgotten; he did not praise them who had signalized
their bravery, for fear of awakening jealousy; in his discourse he did
not venture to speak of country, for Ptolemaïs was not the country of
most of those who listened to him. The picture of the misfortunes which
threatened the city and every one of its inhabitants, was presented in
the darkest colours; there was no hope, no asylum for the vanquished;
nothing was to be expected from the clemency of the Saracens, who
always accomplished their threats, and never fulfilled their promises.
It was but too certain that Europe would send them no succour; they
had not vessels enough to enable them to think of flying by sea:—thus
the patriarch took less pains to dissipate the alarms of his auditors
than to animate them by despair. He terminated his speech by exhorting
them to place all their confidence in God and their swords, to prepare
for fight by penitence, to love each other, to help each other, and to
endeavour to render their lives or their death glorious for themselves
and serviceable to Christianity.

The speech of the patriarch made the deepest impression upon the
assembly; nothing was heard but sobs and sighs; every person present
was in tears; the religious sentiments which are generally awakened by
the aspect of a great peril, filled all their hearts with an ardour and
an enthusiasm they had never before experienced; most of them embraced
each other, and exchanged reciprocal exhortations to brave every
danger; they mutually confessed their sins, and even expressed a hope
for the crown of martyrdom; those who had meditated desertion the day
before, swore that they would never abandon the city, but would die on
the ramparts with their brethren and companions.

The leaders and soldiers then went to the posts entrusted to their
bravery. Such as were not employed in the defence of the ramparts
and towers, made themselves ready to contend with their enemies, if
they should gain access to the city; barriers were erected in all the
streets, and heaps of stones were collected on the roofs, and at the
doors of houses, to crush the Mussulmans, or impede them on their march.

Scarcely were these preparations finished, than the air resounded
with the notes of trumpets and the beating of drums; a horrible
noise, proceeding from the plain, announced the approach of the
Saracens. After having discharged a multitude of arrows, they advanced
confidently towards the wall they had broken through the day before.
But they met with a resistance they did not expect; many were slain at
the foot of the ramparts; but as their number momentarily increased,
their constantly renewed attacks necessarily exhausted the strength
of the Christians, at first in small numbers, and receiving no
reinforcements. Towards the end of the day, the Christians had scarcely
the power to hurl a javelin or handle a lance. The wall began again
to give way beneath the strokes of the rams; then the patriarch, ever
present at the point of danger, exclaimed in a supplicating tone,—“Oh,
God! surround us with a rampart that men cannot destroy, and cover us
with the ægis of Thy power!” At hearing this, the soldiers appeared
to rally and make a last effort; they precipitated themselves upon
the enemy, calling upon the _blessed Jesus, with a loud voice_. The
Saracens, adds our chronicler, _called upon the name of their Mahomet_,
and uttered the most fearful threats against the defenders of the
Christian faith.

Whilst this conflict was going on upon the ramparts, the city awaited
in great dread the issue of the battle; the agitation of men’s minds
gave birth to a thousand rumours, which were in turn adopted and
rejected. It was reported in the most remote quarters, that the
Christians were victorious, and the Mussulmans had fled; it was
likewise added, that a fleet with an army on board had arrived from the
West. To these news, which created a momentary joy, succeeded the most
disheartening intelligence; and in all these reports there was nothing
true but that which announced something inauspicious.

It was soon known that the Mussulmans had entered the city. The
Christian warriors who defended the gate of St. Antony, had not been
able to resist the shock of the enemy, and fled into the streets,
imploring the assistance of the inhabitants. These latter then
remembered the exhortations of the patriarch; reinforcements hasten
from all quarters; the knights of the Hospital, with the valiant
William at their head, reappear. A storm of stones falls from the tops
of the houses; iron chains are stretched across the passage of the
Mussulman cavalry; such as have been exhausted by fight recover their
strength, and rush again into the _mêlée_; they who have come to their
assistance follow their steps, break through the Mussulman battalions,
disperse them and pursue them beyond the ramparts. In every one of
these combats was exhibited all that valour can accomplish when united
with despair. On contemplating, on one side the inevitable ruin of a
great city, and on the other the efforts of a small number of defenders
who put off, day after day, scenes of destruction and death, we cannot
help feeling both compassion and surprise. The assaults were renewed
without ceasing, and always with the same fury. At the end of every
day’s conflict, the unfortunate inhabitants of Ptolemaïs congratulated
themselves upon having triumphed over their enemies; but on the morrow,
when the sun appeared above the horizon, what were their thoughts when
they beheld from the top of their ramparts the Mussulman army still the
same, covering the plain from the sea to the foot of Karenba and Carmel!

The Saracens, on their part, became astonished at the resistance which
all their attacks met with; so many combats, in which their innumerable
multitude had not been able to obtain a decided advantage, began to
give them discouragement. In the infidel army it was impossible to
explain the invincible bravery of the Christian soldiers without
assigning miraculous causes for it. A thousand extraordinary tales flew
from mouth to mouth, and struck the imagination of the gross crowd
of the Mussulmans. They believed they saw two men in every one of
those with whom they fought;[56] in the excess of their astonishment,
they persuaded themselves that every warrior who fell beneath their
stroke was reborn of himself, and returned stronger and more terrible
than ever to the field of battle. The sultan of Cairo appeared to
have lost all hope of taking the city by assault. It is asserted that
the renegadoes, whose apostasy made them desirous of the ruin of the
Christian name, sought every means to revive his courage; the sieur
Barthélemi, who had sworn an eternal hatred to the Franks, followed
the Mussulman army;[57] this implacable deserter neglected nothing
to encourage the leaders, to reanimate them for battle, and awaken
in their hearts the furious passions that constantly devoured his
own. In addition to these, the imauns and sheiks, who were numerous
in the Mameluke camps, pervaded the ranks of the army to inflame the
fanaticism of the soldiers: the sultan threatened all who flew before
the enemy with punishment, and offered immense rewards for those
who should plant the standard of the Prophet, not upon the walls of
Ptolemaïs, but in the centre of the city.

On the 4th of May, a day fatal to the Christians, the signal for a
fresh assault was given. At dawn the Mussulman army was under arms,
the sultan animating the soldiers by his presence. Both the attack and
the defence were much more animated and obstinate than they had been
for some days before. Among those who fell on the field of battle,
there were seven Mussulmans for one Christian; but the Mussulmans could
repair their losses; those of the Christians were irreparable. The
Saracens still directed all their efforts against the tower and the
gate of St. Antony.

They were already upon the breach, when the knights of the Temple
formed the rash resolution of making a sortie, and attacking the camp
of the Mussulmans. They found the enemy’s army drawn up in order of
battle; after a bloody conflict, the Saracens repulsed the Christians,
and pursued them to the foot of the ramparts. The grand master of the
Temple was struck by an arrow and fell in the midst of his knights. The
grand-master of the Hospital, at the same time received a wound which
disabled him. The rout then became general, and all hope of saving the
city was lost. There were scarcely a thousand Christian warriors left
to defend the gate of St. Antony against the whole Mussulman army.

The Christians were obliged to yield to the multitude of their enemies;
they directed their course towards the house of the Templars, situated
on the seacoast. It was then that a death-pall seemed stretched over
the whole city of Ptolemaïs: the Saracens advanced full of fury; there
was not a street that did not become the theatre of carnage; a battle
was fought for every tower, for every palace, and at the entrance of
every public building; and in all these combats, so many men were
killed, that, according to the report of an historian, _they walked
upon the dead as upon a bridge_.

As if angry heaven gave the signal for destruction, a violent storm,
accompanied by hail and rain, burst over the city; the horizon was all
at once covered with such impenetrable darkness, that the combatants
could scarcely distinguish the colours they fought under, or see what
standard floated over the towers; all the scourges contributed to the
desolation of Ptolemaïs; the flames appeared in several quarters,
without any one making an effort to extinguish them; the conquerors
only thought of destroying the city, the only object of the conquered
was to escape. A multitude of people fled away at hazard, without
knowing where they could hope to find an asylum. Whole families took
refuge in the churches, where they were stifled by the flames, or cut
to pieces at the foot of the altars; nuns and timid virgins mixed with
the multitude which wandered through the city, or disfigured with
wounds their faces and their bosoms,[58] to escape the brutality of the
conquerors: what was most deplorable in the spectacle then presented
in Ptolemaïs, was the desertion of the leaders, who abandoned a people
in the height of its despair. John de Gresly and Oste de Granson, who
had scarcely shown themselves upon the ramparts during the siege, fled
away at the very commencement of the battle. Many others, who had
taken the oath to die, at the aspect of this general destruction, only
thought of saving their lives, and threw away their arms to facilitate
their flight. History however is able to contrast some acts of true
heroism with these base desertions. Our readers cannot have forgotten
the brilliant actions of William de Clement. Amidst the ruins of
Ptolemaïs, amidst the universal destruction, he still defied the enemy;
attempting to rally some Christian warriors, he rode to the gate of
St. Antony, which the Templars had just abandoned; though alone, he
wished to renew the fight; he pierced through the ranks of the Saracens
several times, and returned, still fighting; when he came back to the
middle of the city, his war-horse (we copy a relation of the time) was
much fatigued, as was he himself also; the war-horse no longer answered
to the spur, and stopped in the street, as unable to do any more. The
Saracens shot Brother William to the earth with arrows; and thus this
loyal champion of Jesus Christ rendered up his soul to his creator.[59]

We cannot refuse our highest praise to the patriarch of Jerusalem,
who, during the whole siege, shared all the dangers of the combatants;
when he was dragged away towards the port by his friends, to evade the
pursuit of the Mussulmans, the generous old man complained bitterly at
being separated from his flock in the hour of peril. He was induced at
last to embark, but as he insisted upon receiving on board his vessel
all that presented themselves, the boat was sunk, and the faithful
pastor died the victim of his charity.

The sea was tempestuous, the vessels could not approach close to land;
the shore presented a heart-rending spectacle: here a mother called
upon her son, there a son implored the assistance of his father;
many precipitated themselves into the waves, in despair; the mass of
people endeavoured to gain the vessels by swimming; some were drowned
in the attempt, others were beaten off with oars. Several women of the
noblest families flew in terror to the port, bringing with them their
diamonds and their most valuable effects; they promised the mariners
to become their wives, to give themselves and all their wealth up to
them, if they would bear them away from this horrid scene; most of them
were conveyed to the Isle of Cyprus: no pity was shown but to such
as had treasures to bestow in return; thus, when tears had no effect
upon hearts, avarice assumed the place of humanity, and saved some few
victims. At length the Mussulman horsemen came down upon the port, and
furiously pursued the Christians even into the waves: from that moment
no one was able to escape the carnage.

Still, amidst the city given over to pillage, and a prey to the
flames and the barbarity of the conquerors, several fortresses
remained standing, and were defended by some Christian soldiers; these
unfortunate warriors died sword in hand, without any other witnesses of
their glorious end but their implacable enemies.

The castle of the Templars, in which all the knights who had escaped
the steel of the Saracens had taken refuge, was soon the only place in
the city that held out. The sultan having granted them a capitulation,
sent three hundred Mussulmans to execute the treaty. Scarcely had these
entered one of the principal towers, the tower of the grand-master,
than they began to outrage the women who had taken refuge there. This
violation of the rights of war irritated the Christian warriors to
such a degree, that all the Saracens who had entered the tower were
instantly immolated to their too just vengeance. The angry sultan
ordered the siege to be prosecuted against the Christians in their
last asylum, and that all should be put to the sword. The knights of
the Temple and their companions defended themselves for several days:
at length the tower of the grand-master was undermined, and fell at
the very moment the Mussulmans were mounting to an assault: they who
attacked it and they who defended it were equally crushed by its fall;
women, children, Christian warriors, all who had come to seek refuge in
the house of the Templars, perished, buried beneath the ruins. Every
church of Ptolemaïs was plundered, profaned, and then given up to the
flames. The sultan ordered all the principal edifices, with the towers
and ramparts, to be demolished.

The Mussulman soldiers expressed their joy by ferocious clamours; which
joy formed a horrible contrast with the desolation of the conquered.
Amidst the tumultuous scenes of victory were mingled the screams of
women, upon whom the barbarians were committing violence in their camp,
and the cries of little children, borne away into slavery. A distracted
multitude of fugitives, driven from ruin to ruin, and finding no place
of refuge, directed their course to the tent of the sultan, to implore
his mercy; Chalil distributed these Christian supplicants among his
emirs, who caused them all to be massacred. Macrisi makes the number of
these unhappy victims amount to ten thousand.

After the taking and the destruction of Ptolemaïs, the sultan sent
one of his emirs with a body of troops to take possession of the city
of Tyre; this city, seized with terror, opened its gates without
resistance. The conquerors likewise possessed themselves of Berytus,
Sidon, and all the Christian cities along the coast. These cities,
which had not afforded the least succour to Ptolemaïs, in the last
great struggle, and which believed themselves protected by a truce,
beheld their population massacred, dispersed, and led into slavery; the
fury of the Mussulmans extended even to the stones, they seemed to wish
to destroy the very earth which the Christians had trod upon; their
houses, their temples, the monuments of their piety, their valour and
their industry, everything was condemned to perish with them by the
sword or by fire.

Most of the contemporary chronicles attribute such great disasters
to the sins of the inhabitants of Palestine, and in the scenes of
destruction only behold the effect of that divine anger which fell upon
Nineveh and Babylon. History must not reject these easy explanations;
but it is, doubtless, permitted to penetrate deeper into human affairs,
and whilst recognising the intervention of Heaven in the political
destinies of nations, it is bound at least to endeavour to discover the
means which Providence has employed to raise, to maintain for a time,
and at length, to destroy empires.

We have shown, in the course of our recital, to what point the
ambition of the leaders, the want of discipline among the soldiers,
the turbulent passions of the multitude, the corruption of morals,
the spirit of discord and dissension, with egotism and selfishness,
had urged on the kingdom of Jerusalem towards its decline and its
destruction. We shall here offer but one general observation which
belongs to our subject, and which ought not to be omitted in a history
of the crusades.

This power of the Franks had been cast upon Asia, as by a tempest, and
could not support itself there by its own strength. The true support
of the kingdom of Jerusalem remained in the West, and the principle of
its preservation, the source of its power was foreign to itself; its
safety depended upon a crowd of circumstances which its leaders could
not possibly foresee, upon a crowd of events which passed far from
it; it depended above all upon feelings and opinions which prevailed
among distant nations. Whilst the enthusiasm which had founded the
Christian colonies was kept up in Europe, these colonies might hope to
prolong their existence; the greatest of their calamities[60] was the
indifference of the nations which dwelt beyond the seas; the kingdom of
Jerusalem began with the crusades, it was destined to terminate with
them.

A Mussulman chronicler, after having described the desolation of
the coasts of Syria, and the expulsion of the citizens, terminates
his account by this singular reflection: “Things, if it please God,
will remain thus till the last judgment.” The wishes of the Arabian
historian, have hitherto been but too completely fulfilled; the
Mussulmans, for more than five centuries, have reigned over the
countries occupied by the Christians, and with them has reigned the
genius of destruction which presided over the wars we have described.
The philosopher who contemplates these desolated regions, these fields
uncultivated and deserted, these towns in ruins, these cities without
industry, without laws, and almost without inhabitants, and who
compares them with what they were in the times of the crusades, cannot
avoid being deeply impressed by regret and compassion. Without dwelling
upon the motives which governed the actions of the Crusaders, without
approving all that a frequently blind enthusiasm inspired, he must at
least acknowledge that these distant expeditions did some good, and
that if they sometimes carried desolation to the coasts of Syria, they
also carried thither the germs of prosperity and civilization.

BOOK XVI.

ATTEMPTED CRUSADES.

CRUSADES AGAINST THE TURKS.

A.D. 1291-1396.

WE are now arrived at the end of the brilliant epoch of the crusades,
but our task is not yet completed; for, as the curiosity of readers
attaches a high value to the knowledge of the causes of events, in the
same degree must it be desirous of knowing the influence that these
events have had upon the laws, manners, and destinies of nations. After
having witnessed the kindling of so many passions, which inflamed
Europe and Asia during two centuries, who but must be curious to see in
what manner these passions were progressively extinguished; what were
the political combinations that weakened this universal enthusiasm; and
what were the interests, the opinions, and the institutions which took
place of the spirit of the holy wars. Here the philosophy of history
comes at our wish to enlighten us with its lamp, and make clear to us
the eternal course of human things. The end of a great revolution may
be compared, in some sort, to the decline of the life of man, it is
then that the fruits of long experience may be gathered, it is then
that the past, with its remembrances and its lessons, is reflected as
in a faithful mirror.

We will pursue, then, with confidence the work we have begun; if, in
the career we have still to go through, we may have little to say that
will awaken the curiosity of common minds, enlightened spirits will,
doubtless, find some interest, in following with us all these long
reverberations of a revolution which deeply agitated the world, and
whose consequences will be felt by remotest posterity.

When the news of the taking of Ptolemaïs arrived in the West, Pope
Nicholas IV. gave his whole attention to the preaching of a crusade. A
bull addressed to all the faithful, deplored in pathetic terms the late
disasters of the Christians; and the greater that these misfortunes
were, the more fully did the pope offer the treasures of divine mercy
and pontifical indulgences to new Crusaders. An indulgence of a hundred
days was granted to those who would attend the sermons of the preachers
of the crusade, or would come to the churches to listen to the groans
of the city of God. The holy orators had permission to preach the war
of the East in forbidden places; and, that great sinners might be
induced to become soldiers of the cross, the preachers received the
faculty of granting certain absolutions that had till that time been
reserved for the supreme authority of the Holy See.

In many provinces, the clergy assembled in consequence of the
directions of the pope, to deliberate upon the means of recovering
Palestine. The prelates employed themselves in this pious mission
with much zeal, and in order to secure the success of the enterprise,
all united in conjuring the sovereign pontiff to labour without
intermission in bringing about the reëstablishment of peace among
Christian princes.

Several monarchs had already taken the cross; and Nicholas sent legates
to press them to accomplish the vow they appeared to have forgotten.
Edward, king of England, although he had levied the tenths upon the
clergy for the expenses of the crusade, showed very little inclination
to quit his states for the purpose of returning into Asia. The emperor
Rodolph, who, in the conference of Lausanne, had promised the pope to
make the voyage beyond the seas, died at this period, much more deeply
engaged in the affairs of Germany, than in those of the Christians of
the East. Nicholas IV. gave Philip to understand that the whole West
had its eyes fixed upon him, and that his example might influence
all Christendom; the sovereign pontiff at the same time exhorted the
prelates of the Church of France to join with him in persuading the
king, the nobles, and the people, to take arms against the infidels.

The father of the Christian world did not confine his endeavours to
awakening the zeal of the princes and nations of the West; he sent
apostolic messages to the Greek emperor, Andronicus Palæologus, the
emperor of Trebizond, and the kings of Armenia, Georgia, and Cyprus,
in which he announced to them the approaching deliverance of the holy
places. As the Christians in their distress had sometimes turned their
looks towards the Tartars, two missionaries were sent to the coast of
Argun, with directions to offer the Mogul emperor the benedictions of
the sovereign pontiff, and to solicit his powerful aid against the
Mussulmans.

The exertions and exhortations of the pope did not succeed in arming
Europe against the Saracens; contemporary chronicles say that Nicholas
was not able to endure this indifference of the Christians, and that he
died in despair. After his death, the conclave could not agree in the
nomination of a head of the Church, and the Holy See remained vacant
during twenty-seven months. In this long interval, the pulpits which
had resounded with the complaints of the faithful of the East, remained
mute, and Europe forgot the last calamities of the Holy Land.

In the East, the affairs of the Christians took a not more favourable
turn. The discord that had arisen between the princes of the family
of Hayton desolated Armenia, and gave it up to the invasion of the
barbarians. The kingdom of Cyprus, the last asylum of the Franks
established in Asia, only owed a transitory security to the sanguinary
divisions of the Mamelukes of Egypt, and appeared to be fully engaged
by its own dangers.

But whilst Christendom gave up all thoughts of the deliverance
of Jerusalem, the Tartars of Persia, to whom the pope had sent
missionaries, all at once revived the hopes of the Christians, by
forming a project for wresting Syria and Palestine from the hands of
the Mussulmans; an enterprize which only wanted to be a crusade, to
have been proclaimed by the head of the Church.

The Tartars, for a long time, threatened the Mussulman powers, whom the
Christians regarded as their most cruel enemies. Argun, when he died,
was busied in preparations for a formidable war. These preparations
had spread such serious alarm among his enemies, that the disciples of
Mahomet considered his death as one of the number of miracles operated
in favour of Islamism.

Among the successors of Argun, who were by turns the enemies and the
friends of the Mussulmans, there was one able leader, who was warlike,
and more animated by the thirst for conquests than the others. The
Greek historian Pachymerus, and the Armenian Hayton, lavish the highest
praises upon the bravery, the virtue, and even the piety of Cazan. This
Mogul prince considered the Christians as his most faithful allies; and
in his armies, in which the Georgians served, the standard of the cross
floated by the side of the imperial standard. The conquest of the banks
of the Nile and the Jordan engaged all his thoughts. When new cities
were built in his states, he took a delight in bestowing upon them the
names of Aleppo, Damascus, Alexandria, and of several other places in
Egypt and Syria.

Cazan quitted Persia at the head of an army; and the king of Cyprus
with the orders of St. John and the Temple, being made aware of his
projects, joined his standards. A great battle was fought near Emessa,
which was decided against the sultan of Egypt, who lost the greater
part of his army, and was pursued by the Armenian cavalry to the
verge of the desert. Aleppo and Damascus opened their gates to the
conquerors; and if we may believe the historian Hayton, Christians once
more entered Jerusalem, and the emperor of the Tartars visited in their
company the tomb of Christ.

It was from that place Cazan sent ambassadors to the pope and the
sovereigns of Europe, to solicit their alliance, and to offer them
possession of the Holy Land. Among the singularities of this period,
our readers will no doubt be astonished to find a Mogul emperor
endeavouring to revive the spirit of the crusades among the princes
of Christendom; and to see barbarians from the banks of the Irtis and
the Jaxartes waiting upon Calvary and Mount Sion for the warriors
of France, Germany, and Italy, in order to combat the enemies of
Christ. The sovereign pontiff received the ambassadors of Cazan with
distinction; but could only answer their demands and propositions
by promises doomed to remain unexecuted. The haughtiness with which
Boniface VIII., the successor of Nicholas, spoke to the Christian
princes, together with his exhortations, which resembled commands more
than entreaties, disgusted the sovereigns, particularly the king of
France. Genoa, which then lay under an interdict, was the only city of
Europe in which a crusade was seriously spoken of; and by a whimsical
circumstance, it was the ladies who gave the signal and set the example.

We are still in possession of a brief of the pope’s, in which the
holy father felicitates the ladies who had taken the cross, upon
their following the steps of Cazan, the emperor of the Tartars, _who,
although a pagan, had conceived the generous resolution of delivering
the Holy Land_. History has preserved two other letters of the pope,
one addressed to Porchetto, archbishop of Genoa, and the other to four
Genoese nobles, who had undertaken to direct the expedition. “Oh,
prodigy! oh, miracle!” says he to Porchetto; “a weak and timid sex
takes the advance of warriors in this great enterprise, in this war
against the enemies of Christ, in this fight against the workers of
iniquity. The kings and princes of the earth, regardless of all the
solicitations that have been made to them, refuse to send succours to
the Christians banished from the Holy Land, and here are women who come
forward without being called! Whence can this magnanimous resolution
come, if not from God, the source of all strength and all virtue!!!”
The pope terminated his letter by directing the archbishop to call
together the clergy and the people, and proclaim the devotion of the
noble Genoese ladies, in order that their example may cast seeds of
good works into the hearts of the people.

This crusade, notwithstanding, never took place; it was doubtless
only preached to rouse the emulation of the knights, and the pope
only directed his attention to it to give a lesson to the princes of
Christendom, by which they did not at all profit. The letters written
upon this occasion by Boniface VIII. were preserved in the archives
of the republic of Genoa for a long time. Even in the last century,
the helmets and cuirasses which were to have been worn by the Genoese
ladies in this expedition were exhibited in the arsenal of that city.

The Tartars, in spite of their victories, were not able to triumph
over the constancy and discipline of the Mamelukes, who, like
themselves, had issued from the deserts of Scythia. That which had
so often happened to the Franks in the height of the crusades, now
happened to the Moguls; they at first obtained great advantages, but
events foreign to the Holy War recalled them into their own country,
and forced them to abandon their conquests. Cazan was obliged to quit
Syria and return into Persia; he attempted a second expedition, which
he again abandoned; and he died in the third, amidst his triumphs,
bearing with him to the tomb the last hopes of the Christians.

The Armenian and Cyprian warriors left the holy city, the ramparts of
which they had begun to re-erect, and which was doomed never again to
see the standard of the cross unfurled within its walls. This last
reverse of the Christians of the East was scarcely known in Europe,
where the name of Jerusalem was still pronounced in the congregations
of the faithful, but had no longer the power to awaken the enthusiasm
of knights and warriors. At the Council of Vienna, Pope Clement V.
proclaimed a crusade; but in this assembly, in which the abolition of
the Templars was determined upon, Christians were exhorted very feebly
to take up arms against the infidels.

The sovereign pontiff was then much more busy in levying tenths
than in preparations for a holy war. One thing worthy of remark is,
that Clement found himself obliged on this occasion to recommend
moderation to the collectors of the tenths, and forbade them _to seize
the chalices, the books, or the ornaments of the churches_. This
prohibition of the pope’s proves to us that violence had often been
committed in collecting the tributes destined to the expenses of the
holy wars; this violence must have assisted in relaxing the zeal and
ardour of nations for distant enterprises, as the results of which,
Christian cities were ruined, and the altars of Christ plundered.

Europe at that time awaited with great impatience the issue of an
expedition undertaken by the knights of St. John of Jerusalem. A
great number of warriors, excited by the relation of the adventures
of chivalry, and by a passion for military glory, followed the
Hospitallers in their enterprise; women even were desirous of taking a
part in this expedition, and sold their diamonds and jewels to provide
for the expenses of the war.

This army of new crusaders embarked at the port of Brendisi, and it
soon became known in the West that the knights of the Hospital had
taken possession of the isle of Rhodes.

Renown published everywhere the exploits of the Hospitallers and
their companions in arms; and these exploits, and the admiration they
inspired throughout Christendom, naturally turned the attention and
remembrances of the faithful to the Templars, who were reproached with
the disgraceful repose in which they forgot both the Holy Land and the
tomb of Christ.

The knights of the Temple, after having been received in the Isle of
Cyprus, had returned to Sicily, where they were employed by the king
in an expedition against Greece. United with the Catalans and some
warriors from Italy, this warlike body took possession of Thessalonica,
made themselves masters of Athens, advanced towards the Hellespont, and
ravaged a part of Thrace. After this expedition the Templars disdained
the possession of the cities which had fallen into their power, and
leaving the conquered provinces to their companions in arms, they
kept for themselves the riches of the people they had subdued. It was
then that, loaded with the spoils of Greece, they came to establish
themselves in the West, particularly in France, where their opulence,
their luxury, and their idleness, scandalized the piety of the
faithful, awakened envy, and provoked the hatred of both the people and
the great.

It does not enter into the plan of this work to dilate upon the process
instituted against the Templars; but if we have followed these noble
knights in all their wars against the Mussulmans,—if we have been so
long witnesses of their exploits, and, as it were, companions of their
labours, we shall perhaps have acquired the right of expressing our
opinion upon the accusations directed against them. We must at once
declare that we have found nothing up to the period of the process,
either in the chronicles of the East, or those of the West, which can
give birth to or establish an idea, or even a suspicion, of the crimes
imputed to them. How can it, in fact, be believed, that a warlike
and religious order, which twenty years before had seen three hundred
of its knights sacrifice themselves upon the ruins of Saphet, rather
than embrace the Mussulman faith, that this order which had almost
entirely buried itself under the ruins of Ptolemaïs could possibly have
contracted an alliance with infidels, outraged the Christian religion
with horrible blasphemies, and given up to the Saracens that Holy Land
filled with its military glory.

And at what period were all these odious reproaches addressed to
the Templars? at a time when Christendom seemed to have forgotten
Jerusalem, and in which the name of Christ was not sufficient to awaken
the bravery of a Christian warrior. No doubt the order of the Templars
had degenerated from the austerity of early times, and that it was no
longer animated by that spirit of humility and religion of which St.
Bernard so much boasted; no doubt some of the knights had brought with
them that corruption which was then the reproach of all the Christians
of the East, and of which Europe itself could offer them numerous
examples; no doubt, in short, some among them might have wounded
morality by their conduct, and offended the religion of Christ by their
irregularities; but we do not hesitate to say that it was not the
province of men to judge them, and that upon this occasion the merciful
God of the Christians had not deputed his vengeance to human laws.

The real error of the Templars was having quitted the East, and
renounced the spirit of their institution, which was to receive and
protect pilgrims, and to combat with the enemies of the Christian
faith. This order, richer than the most powerful monarchs, and whose
knights were as a regular army, always ready for fight, became,
naturally, dreaded by the princes who granted them an asylum. The
Templars had not been free from all reproach during their abode in
Cyprus; accustomed to rule in Palestine, they must have contracted
a habit of obedience with difficulty. The example of the Teutonic
knights, who, after quitting the East, founded a power in the north of
Europe which was dreaded by the neighbouring states, was not likely to
reassure princes who mistrusted the warlike spirit, and the active and
enterprising genius, of the knights of the Temple.

Such, probably, were the motives which armed the policy rather than
the justice of sovereigns against them; nothing so clearly proves
the fear they inspired as the rancour with which they were pursued,
and the care that was taken to render them odious. As soon as their
persecution began, they were only considered as enemies whom it was
necessary to treat as criminals. As rigours without example preceded
their abolition, it was necessary to justify that measure by fresh
rigours. Vengeance and hatred finished that which the policy of princes
had begun; a policy which had, perhaps, reasons for being suspicious,
but which had none for proving itself barbarous. It is thus we must
explain the tragical issue of this process, in which all the forms of
justice were so violated, that even if the accusations be considered
proved, we must still regard the Templars as victims and their judges
as executioners.[61]

Philip-le-Bel had promised the council of Vienna to go into the East to
combat the infidels, without doubt to procure pardon for having pursued
the knights of the Temple with so much inveteracy. Amidst the festivals
that welcomed the arrival of Edward in Paris, the French monarch and
the princes of his family took the cross. Most of the nobles of his
court followed his example, and the ladies promised to accompany the
knights to the holy war; but no one took any measures for setting
out. Promises were then made to cross the seas by persons who had not
any serious intention of leaving their homes. The vow to combat the
Saracens appeared to be a vain ceremony, which engaged the swearer to
nothing. It was taken with perfect indifference, and violated in the
same manner; _considered as not more sacred than the vows the knights
made to the ladies_.

Philip-le-Bel died without ever having thought of accomplishing his
vow. Philip-le-Long, who succeeded him, entertained for a moment the
project of going into the East. Edward, who had already several times
sworn to fight the Saracens, at the same time renewed his promise. But
the sovereign pontiff, whether that he doubted their sincerity, or
whether that he stood in need of the concurrence of these two monarchs
to reëstablish tranquillity in Europe, and to resist the emperor of
Germany, against whom he had armed himself with the thunders of the
Church, or whether, in short, he thought the moment an unfavourable
one, did not approve of their expedition into Syria. “Before thinking
of the voyage beyond the seas,” wrote he to the king of England, “we
would wish you to establish peace, first in your own conscience, then
in your kingdom.” The father of the faithful represented to the king
of France that the peace, so necessary to be firm before a crusade
should be undertaken, was almost banished from Christendom. England and
Scotland were at war; the states of Germany were divided against each
other; the king of Sicily and the king of Naples were only bound by a
truce of short duration; reciprocal mistrust prevented the kings of
Cyprus and Armenia from uniting their forces against the common enemy;
the kings of Spain were quite sufficiently employed in defending their
states against the Moors; the republics of Lombardy were all in arms
against each other; all the cities of Italy were torn by factions, the
provinces a prey to tyrants, the sea impracticable, the route by land
thickly strewed with dangers. After having given this picture of the
deplorable state of Christendom, the pope pressed Philip to inquire
seriously how he could provide for the expenses of the war without
ruining his people, _or without attempting_, he added, _to do that
which is impossible, as has been done before_.

The paternal advice of the sovereign pontiff, and some troubles which
arose in the bosom of his kingdom, determined Philip to postpone the
execution of his project. A multitude of herdsmen and shepherds, of
adventurers and vagabonds, setting up, as in the time of the captivity
of St. Louis, the pilgrims’ cross, assembled in many places, persecuted
the Jews, and committed most culpable excesses. Force of arms and the
full severity of the laws were obliged to be resorted to, in order to
quell these disorders, of which the crusade was only a pretext. At the
same time several provinces of France suffered greatly from an epidemic
disease; the Jews were accused of having poisoned the wells, with the
design of suspending the preparations for the holy war. They were
accused of all sorts of plots against the Christians; and the general
fermentation was the greater from the suspicions being vague, and
from the impossibility of proving or contradicting the crimes alleged.
Policy could discover no other means of dissipating the troubles than
that of entering into the passions of the multitude, and driving all
the Jews out of the kingdom. Amidst these unhappy circumstances, Philip
fell ill, and died regretting his not having accomplished the vow he
had made of warring against the Saracens.

In the state of abandonment to which the crusades had fallen, we
are surprised at seeing the minds of the French still occasionally
directed towards the delivery of the holy places. This last flickering
of enthusiasm, which our ancestors kept alight amidst the general
indifference, was not confined to religious sentiments, but extended
to a feeling of patriotism and national glory. It was France which
had given the first impulsion to the holy wars, as we have several
times observed. The name of Palestine, the names of St. Jean d’Acre or
Ptolemaïs, and that of Jerusalem appealed no less to patriotism than to
piety. Although the two expeditions of Louis IX. had been unsuccessful,
the example of the holy monarch was a great authority for the princes
of his family, and often carried their thoughts to the places where he
had suffered the glory of martyrdom. The memory of his exploits and
even of his misfortunes, the memory of the heroes who had died on the
banks of the Nile and the Jordan, interested all the families of the
kingdom; and the city in which reposed the ashes of Godfrey and Baldwin
of Bouillon, those distant regions in which so many glorious battles
had been fought, could not be forgotten by French warriors.

After the death of Philip-le-Long, ambassadors arrived in Europe
from the king of Armenia; this prince, abandoned by the Tartars,
and threatened by the Mamelukes of Egypt, requested the assistance
of the West. The pope wrote to Charles-le-Bel, the successor of
Philip-le-Long, and conjured him to take up arms against the infidels.
Charles received with respect the counsels and the exhortations of
the sovereign pontiff, and was engaged in preparations for a crusade
when the succession of the county of Flanders caused a war to break
out in the Low Countries. From that time France became attentive only
to the events that were passing before her eyes, and in which her own
independence and safety were deeply interested. At the approach of
death, and at a time when the kingdom had no longer anything to fear,
Charles-le-Bel remembered his oath, and his last thoughts were directed
towards the deliverance of Jerusalem. “I bequeath,” says he in his
will, “to the Holy Land fifty thousand livres, to be paid and delivered
when the general passage shall be made; and it is my intention, if
the passage be made in my lifetime, to go thither in person.”[62]
It was thus that at this period the spirit of the crusades still
occasionally showed itself; most of the testaments[63] then made by
princes and _rich men_ (these words designated the nobility) contained
some dispositions in favour of the Holy Land; but we must add, also,
that the facility of purchasing the merit of pilgrimage for money
must necessarily have greatly diminished the number of pilgrims and
Crusaders.

Whilst dying people were thus prodigal of their treasure for the holy
war, nobody took up arms. There still, however, remained some men
endowed with a vivid imagination and an ardent temperament, who made
incredible efforts to rekindle an enthusiasm on the point of being
extinguished. The greater the indifference of nations, the greater
were the ardour and zeal displayed by these men in their preachings.
Among these latter apostles of the crusades, history cites the name
of Raymond Lulli, one of the luminaries of the schools of the middle
ages.[64]

Lulli was possessed during his life but by one thought, and that was,
to combat and convert the infidels.[65] It was upon the proposition
of this zealous missionary that the council of Vienna decided that
chairs should be established in the universities of Rome, Bologna,
Paris, and Salamanca, for instruction in the languages of the East. He
presented to the pope several memorials upon the means of annihilating
the worship of Mahomet and the domination of his disciples. Lulli,
constantly occupied with his project, made a pilgrimage into Palestine,
travelled through Syria, Armenia, and Egypt, and came back to Europe
to describe the misfortunes, the captivity, and the disgraces of the
Christians beyond the seas. On his return, he visited all the courts of
the West, seeking to communicate to sovereigns the sentiments by which
he was animated. Finding his efforts were vain, his zeal carried him to
the coast of Africa, where he endeavoured to convert by his eloquence
those same Saracens against whom he had invoked the arms of Christian
warriors. He returned to Europe, passed through Italy, France, and
Spain, preaching everywhere the necessity for another crusade. He
embarked again for Jerusalem, and brought back, as the fruit of his
pilgrimage, some useful notions upon the best manner of attacking the
countries of the infidels. All his labours, all his researches, all his
prayers, produced no effect upon the indifference of kings and nations.
Lulli, at length despairing of seeing his projects realised, and
deploring the blindness of his contemporaries, retired to the island of
Majorca, which was his native country. From the depth of his retreat
he still issued memorials upon an expedition to the East; but solitude
soon wearied his ardent and restless spirit, and he quitted Majorca,
no more to waste his words upon the princes of Europe, who would not
listen to him, but to return to the Mussulmans, whom he still hoped
to lead to the Gospel by his eloquence. He repaired a second time to
Africa, and at length suffered, as the reward of his preachings, the
torments and the death of martyrs.

Whilst Lulli was striving to direct the efforts of the faithful to the
deliverance of the holy places, a noble Venetian likewise consecrated
his life and his talents to the revival of the spirit of the crusades.
Sanuti thus describes the first audience he obtained of the sovereign
pontiff: “I am not sent hither,” said he, “by any king, any prince,
or any republic; it is from the impulse of my own mind that I come to
throw myself at the feet of your holiness, and to propose to you an
easy means of crushing the enemies of the true faith, of extirpating
the sect of Mahomet, and of recovering the Holy Land.[66] My voyages in
Cyprus, Armenia, and Egypt, together with a long sojourn in Romania,
have furnished me with knowledge and information that may be turned to
the profit of Christianity.” On finishing these words, Sanuti presented
two books to the pope, one covered with red and the other with yellow,
and four geographical charts, the first of the Mediterranean Sea, the
second of the earth and of the sea, the third of the Holy Land, the
fourth, of Egypt. The two books of the noble Venetian contained the
history of the Christian establishments in the East, and wise counsels
respecting the undertaking of another crusade. His zeal, enlightened
by experience, did not allow him to neglect the least detail upon the
route that was to be followed, upon the point that it would be best
to attack, upon the number of troops, and upon the fitting out and
provisioning of the vessels. He advised that operations should commence
by landing in Egypt, and weakening the power of the sultans of Cairo.
The most certain means of effecting this latter purpose was to obtain
directly from Bagdad the Indian merchandises which European commerce
was accustomed to get by the cities of Alexandria and Damietta. Sanuti,
at the same time, advised the sovereign pontiff to redouble the
severity of his censures against those who carried into Egypt arms,
metals, timber for building, or anything that could assist in equipping
fleets or arming the Mameluke soldiery.

The pope bestowed great praises upon Sanuti, and furnished him with
introductions to several sovereigns of Europe. The Christian princes,
particularly the king of France, received him with kindness, lauded
his piety, and admired his talents—but took care not to follow
his advice. Sanuti addressed himself likewise to the emperor of
Constantinople, to engage him in an expedition against the infidels;
he sought everywhere, and by every means, to raise up enemies against
the Mussulmans, and passed his life in preaching a crusade, without
obtaining any more success than Raymond Lulli had done.

The zeal of the two men of whom we have just spoken can only be
compared to that of Peter the Hermit; they were both much more
enlightened than the cenobite Peter, but they could get no one to
listen to them, and the fruitlessness of their efforts proves how much
the times were changed. Peter preached in cities and in public places,
and the multitude, inflamed by his discourses, led away and awakened
the feelings of the great. In the times of Lulli and Sanuti, sovereigns
alone could be addressed, and sovereigns, occupied by their own
affairs, showed very little interest for projects which only concerned
Christendom in general. In the early times of the crusades, the
deliverance of the holy places was a matter of importance; simply to
pronounce the name of Jerusalem was sufficient to appease differences
among princes; later, the least interest of jealousy, ambition, or
self-love had the power to arrest the progress of, or completely put an
end to, a holy enterprise. Frequently, in the twelfth century, popes
and simple preachers, arming themselves with the authority of Christ,
commanded princes to take up the cross and set out for the East; in the
thirteenth, but more particularly in the fourteenth century, it was
necessary to pray and solicit; and, generally, the most humble prayers
produced no effect.[67]

Thus, the groans of Sion no longer melted hearts, and Christian
eloquence was powerless against infidels. In order to awaken attention,
it was necessary to mingle something of profane grandeur with the
pathetic exhortations of religion; thus, Europe, which scarcely
listened to the missionaries of the cross, appeared, all at once,
to be aroused by the arrival of the king of Cyprus, soliciting, in
person, the assistance of Christian princes. The pope, who was then at
Avignon, eagerly announced to the faithful that an Eastern king was
come to his court, and conjured the warriors of the West to take up
arms against the Saracens. The king of Cyprus and Jerusalem described
the invasions of the Mamelukes, the progress of the Turks, the dangers
which surrounded his kingdom, that of Armenia, and the isle of Rhodes,
and omitted no instance of the numerous persecutions endured by the
Christians who remained in Syria and Egypt. These sad recitals, coming
from a royal mouth, awakened some generous sentiments in men’s minds;
a league was formed between the sovereign pontiff, the king of France,
and the republic of Venice; and the pope published a bull by which he
ordered the bishops to cause a crusade to be preached.

Philip of Valois convoked an assembly at Paris, in the Holy Chapel,
at which were present John, king of Bohemia, the king of Navarre, the
dukes of Burgundy, Brittany, Lorraine, Brabant, and Bourbon, with most
of the prelates and barons of the kingdom. Peter de la Palue, named
patriarch of Jerusalem, and who had recently passed through Egypt and
Palestine, harangued the auditory upon the necessity for attacking the
infidels, and stopping the progress of their domination in the East.
Philip, who had already taken the cross, renewed the vow he had made,
and as he was preparing to quit his kingdom, the barons took the oath
of obedience to his son Prince John, by raising their hands towards the
crown of thorns of Christ. John of Bohemia, the king of Navarre, and a
great number of princes and nobles, received the cross from the hands
of the archbishop of Rouen. The crusade was preached throughout the
kingdom, “and gave to all noble lords,” says Froissart, “great delight,
particularly to those who wished to pass their time in arms, and knew
no means then of employing it otherwise more reasonably.”[68]

The king of France sent to the pope the archbishop of Rouen, who
afterwards ascended the chair of St. Peter under the name of Clement
VI. The archbishop, in full consistory, pronounced a discourse upon
the crusade, and declared, in the presence of divine majesty, to the
holy father, to the church of Rome and all Christendom, that Philip of
Valois would set out for the East in the month of August, in the year
1336. The pope felicitated the French monarch upon his resolution,
and granted him the tenths during six years. These circumstances are
related by Philip Villani, who was at Avignon at the time, and who,
after having spoken in his history of the promise made in the Dame of
the king of France, exclaims:—“And I, the historian, I heard the oath
pronounced which I have just related.”

Philip gave orders that a fleet, assembled in the port of Marseilles,
should be made ready to receive forty thousand Crusaders. Edward III.,
to whom the crusade offered an easy means of imposing taxes, promised
to accompany the king of France with an army in the pilgrimage beyond
the seas. Most of the republics of Italy, with the kings of Arragon,
Majorca, and Hungary, engaged to supply money, troops, and vessels
for the expedition. In the midst of their preparations, the Crusaders
lost him who directed and was the soul of the enterprise. Everything
was interrupted by the death of Pope John XXI., and in this place
it becomes necessary to point out one of the causes which rendered
abortive, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, so many attempts
to carry the war into the East. As the successors of St. Peter scarcely
ever succeeded to the pontifical chair before they were of an advanced
age, they were wanting in the energy and activity necessary for
exciting the Christian world, directing distant wars, and kindling an
enthusiasm, formerly so difficult to be restrained, now so difficult to
be revived. Each crusade requiring long preparations, the life of one
sovereign pontiff scarcely sufficed for the completion of such great
enterprises. It most frequently happened, that he who had preached a
holy war could not behold the departure of the Crusaders; and that
he who saw the Christian armies set out, never lived long enough to
follow them through their expeditions, conduct them in their triumphs,
or succour them in their reverses. Thus we never find in the projects
which circumstances had formed, that spirit of sequence and wholeness
necessary to secure execution and success. Add to this, that since the
popes had been established at Avignon, and their apostolic seat was no
longer in the centre of Christendom, they did not exercise the same
ascendancy over the distant provinces, and their authority every day
lost something of that influence attached to the name only of Rome,
considered, during so many centuries, the capital of the world.

The news of a fresh crusade having reached the East, the Christians who
dwelt in Syria or Egypt, with pilgrims and European merchants, were
exposed to all sorts of persecutions. The sultan of Cairo and several
Mussulman princes assembled armies for the purpose of resisting the
Crusaders, or to go and attack the Christians in the West. A descendant
of the Abassides, who resided in Egypt, and assumed the title of
caliph, sent letters and messages in every direction to engage all true
believers to take up arms; promising the martyrs of the Mussulman faith
that they should be present at delicious banquets, and that each of
them should have seven virgins for wives.

The aim of this crusade, preached in the name of the prophet of Mecca,
was to penetrate into Europe by the way of Gibraltar; the Mussulman
warriors swore to annihilate Christianity, and to convert all the
Christian temples into stables. In proportion as the Saracens were
thus becoming inflamed for an expedition, which they also called a
holy war, Europe beheld the zeal of the princes and warriors who had
sworn to combat the enemies of Christ, grow fainter and fainter, and
at length die away. When Benedict XI. succeeded John XXI., he found
the minds of all changed; hatreds, mistrusts and jealousies had taken
place of a transitory and insincere enthusiasm; it was in vain that
Christians from the East described the persecutions they had undergone
and the preparations of the infidels against the nations of the West;
it was in vain that the pope continued his exhortations and his
prayers; the greater that the reason was for undertaking a crusade,
the more indifferent people became, and the more all ranks seemed to
shun the idea of contending with the Saracens. It was at this period
that Brother Andrew of Antioch came to Avignon with the design of
imploring the aid of the pope and the princes of Christendom. Philip
of Valois had come to the court of the sovereign pontiff, to inform
him that he should defer his voyage into the East, and had mounted his
horse to return to Paris, when Brother Andrew presented himself before
him, and said: “Art thou Philip king of France, who promised God and
his Church to deliver the Holy Land?” The king answered, “Yes.” Then
the monk resumed: “If thy intention is to perform that which thou hast
promised, I implore Jesus Christ to direct thy steps, and grant thee
the victory; but if the enterprise thou hast commenced is only to turn
to the shame and misfortunes of Christians, if thou art not, with the
help of God, determined to finish it, if thou hast deceived the holy
Catholic Church, divine justice will fall heavily on thy family and on
thy kingdom, and the blood which the news of thy expedition has caused
to flow will rise up against thee.” The king surprised at this strange
appeal, answered: “Brother Andrew, come with us:” and Brother Andrew
replied without being moved, and in an inspired tone: “If thou wast
going into the East, I would go before thee, but as thou art going to
the West, go on; I will return to perform penance for my sins in the
land thou hast abandoned.”

Such was even then the authority of the orators who spoke in the name
of Jerusalem, that the last words of Brother Andrew left trouble and
uneasiness in the mind of a powerful monarch; but fresh political
storms had recently broken out. Edward III. had laid claim to the
throne of the Capets, and his ambition was the signal for a war which
lasted more than a century, and brought the greatest calamities upon
France. Philip, attacked by a formidable enemy, was obliged to renounce
his expedition beyond the seas, and employ, for the defence of his
own kingdom, the troops and fleets that he had collected for the
deliverance of the heritage of Christ.

The pope did not, however, abandon the project of the holy war. The
poet Petrarch, who was then at Avignon, proved one of the most ardent
apostles of the crusade. This illustrious poet, whom we are now
accustomed to consider only as the ingenious singer of the praises of
the fair Laura, and who was then deemed the most worthy interpreter
of the wisdom of the ancients, and one of the great spirits of his
age, addressed an eloquent letter to the Doge of Venice, to induce
him to enter into a war against the Mussulmans. Some of the states
of Italy united their forces to make an expedition into the East.
A chronicle of the counts of Ason relates that a great number of
Crusaders, clothed in white, with a red cross, marched out of Milan;
and that a fleet, equipped by the sovereign pontiff, passed through the
Archipelago, and surprised the city of Smyrna, in which the Crusaders
were themselves quickly besieged by the Turks. The pope’s legate and
several knights perished in a sortie, which circumstance determined
the sovereign pontiff to employ new efforts to revive a zeal for the
crusade. It was at this period that the dauphin of Viennois, Humbert
II., resolved to take the cross, and came to Avignon, to supplicate
the pope to allow him to be the captain of the holy voyage against
the Turks, and against the faithless vassals of the church of Rome.
Humbert easily obtained all he asked, and returned to his states to
make preparations for his expedition. He alienated his domains, he
sold privileges to the nobility, and immunities to his cities; he
levied considerable sums upon the Jews, and upon the Italian merchants
established in the Viennois; he exacted a tribute from all his subjects
who would not accompany him to the crusade, and having embarked, with
a hundred men-at-arms, he went to seek in Asia either the fortune of
a conqueror or the glory of a martyr. He found neither the one nor
the other, and returned to Europe without renown and burdened with
debts. History represents Humbert as a weak, inconstant and irresolute
prince. He ruined himself, in the first place, by his dissipation, then
by the expenses of the crusade; weary of the world and its affairs,
he finished by abandoning to the crown of France his principality,
which he had pledged to Philip of Valois, and retired to a monastery
of Dominican Friars. In order to console him for not having conquered
Egypt or any other country, the pope bestowed upon him the title of
patriarch of Alexandria; and the king of France, to make him forget
Dauphiny, named him archbishop of Rheims.

Such were the events and the consequences of the crusade occasioned
in Europe by the arrival of Hugh of Lusignan, king of Cyprus. Some
years having glided away, this prince came again to solicit the aid of
the sovereign pontiff; at this period most of the sovereigns were in a
state of war, and the pope not being able to do anything for the king
of Cyprus, conceived the singular idea of naming him tribune of Rome.
Hugh of Lusignan accepted this function, and died in Italy, without
having been able to send any succour to the East.

War was not then the only scourge that ravaged the world; the horrors
of the plague were added to the destruction of arms; this contagion
which was called the black plague, and which took its rise upon the
great level plain of Tartary, extended its devastations over all the
countries of the East and West, and in a few years carried off more
than thirteen millions of men. Historians have remarked that this
scourge in its funeral march followed the footsteps of the merchants
who brought into Europe the productions of India, and of the pilgrims
who returned from Palestine.

As soon as pestilence had ceased its ravages, war resumed all its fury.
The deplorable state in which discord had plunged Europe at that time,
and particularly France, must have made people regret the periods
when the preaching of a crusade imposed silence upon all passions and
suspended all hostilities. The pope had several times undertaken to
reëstablish peace: he at first addressed supplications to the English
monarch; he afterwards threatened him with the thunders of the Church,
but the voice of the father of the faithful was lost in the din of arms.

Philip of Valois died amidst the terrible struggle he had to maintain
against England. The loss of the battle of Poictiers and the captivity
of King John became the signal for the greatest troubles that afflicted
the kingdom of France in the middle ages. The plots of the king of
Navarre, the intrigues of the great, the disorders of the people, the
fury of factions, the sanguinary scenes of the Jacquerie, spread terror
and desolation in the capital and through the provinces. When France
had completed the exhaustion of her treasures by paying the ransom of
King John, the presence of her monarch was not able to restore to her
the repose she required to repair her misfortunes. The soldiers of
both nations, who were disbanded without pay, and who found themselves
without an asylum, formed themselves into armed bands, and under the
name of white companies, pervaded the kingdom, braving the orders of
the king and the excommunications of the pope, and carrying wherever
they went license, murder and devastation. All that had escaped
the sword of the English, and the avidity of the collectors of the
imposts, became the prey of these brigands, whose numbers increased in
proportion with their impunity and their excesses. The fields remained
uncultivated; all commercial pursuits were interrupted; and terror and
misery reigned in the cities. Thus the suspension of hostilities had
brought no relief to the evils of nations, and the disorders which
broke out during the peace were more insupportable than those which had
been endured during the war.

It was in these unfortunate circumstances that Peter, the son of Hugh
of Lusignan, came, after the example of his father, to solicit the
assistance of the Christian princes against the infidels, and caused
Urban V. to adopt the project of a new crusade. Perhaps he hoped that
the state of confusion in which France was plunged offered him a means
of raising troops, and that he might turn against his enemies of the
East, all the furies of war which desolated the kingdom.

Peter of Lusignan proposed to attack the power of the sultans of
Cairo, whose dominions extended to Jerusalem. Christendom had at that
time more redoubtable enemies among the Mussulman nations than the
Mamelukes of Egypt. The Turks, who had become masters of Asia Minor,
had recently passed the Hellespont, pushed their conquests as far as
Mount Hemus, and placed the seat of their empire at Adrianople. That
was the enemy that doubtless ought to have been attacked, but the Turks
did not as yet inspire serious alarm, except in the countries they had
invaded or menaced. At the court of Avignon, at which were assembled
the king of Cyprus, the king of France, and the king of Denmark, there
was no mention made of the invasion of Romania, or of the dangers of
Constantinople, but of the loss of the Christian colonies in Syria, and
of the captivity in which the city of Christ was still held.

Peter of Lusignan spoke with enthusiasm of the war against the
infidels, and of the deliverance of the holy places; King John did not
listen to him without emotion, and finished by forgetting his own
misfortunes, to interest himself about those of the Christians beyond
the seas. Waldemar III., king of Denmark, was equally affected by the
discourse and the accounts of the king of Cyprus. The pope preached the
crusade before the three monarchs: it was holy week; the remembrance of
the sufferings of Christ appeared to add authority to the words of the
pontiff, and when he deplored the misfortunes of Jerusalem, the princes
who listened to him could not refrain from shedding tears, and swore to
go and fight the Saracens.

We may, doubtless, believe that the king of France was led to take
the cross by a sentiment of piety, and by the eloquence of the pope;
but we must likewise suppose that the counsels of policy were not
entirely foreign to this determination. The spirit of the holy war,
if once really awakened, would necessarily go far to appease, if not
extinguish, the discords and passions kindled by revolution and civil
war. King John might entertain the hope of uniting under the standard
of the crusade, and seducing to follow him beyond the seas, the _white
companies_, over whom he could exercise no authority; and the sovereign
pontiff was no less anxious to get rid of these bands of brigands, who
braved his spiritual power, and threatened to make him a prisoner in
Avignon.

Several great nobles, John of Artois, the count of Eu, the count
Dammartin, the count de Tancarville, and Marshal Boucicault, followed
the example of King John. The Cardinal Talleyrand de Périgord was named
legate of the pope in the crusade. The king of Denmark promised to
unite his forces with those of the French. To encourage his zeal, the
sovereign pontiff gave him a fragment of the true cross, and several
other relics, the sight of which would constantly remind him of the
holy cause he had sworn to defend. Waldemar III. had come to the court
of Avignon to place his kingdom under the protection of the Holy See;
he took all the oaths required of him; but the bulls he obtained from
Urban, as the price of his submission, had no efficacy in restoring
peace to his dominions, and the troubles which followed his return soon
made him forget his promises regarding the holy war.

The king of Cyprus, with most pressing recommendations from the pope,
visited all the courts of Europe; the zeal and the chivalric eloquence
of the hero of the cross were universally admired; but he derived
nothing but vague promises from his enterprise, and received nothing
but vain felicitations for a devotion which found no imitators.

The king of France was the only one of all the Christian princes who
appeared to engage himself earnestly in the crusade. Urban V., however,
showed but little confidence in the firmness of his resolution, as
he felt it necessary to threaten with excommunication all who should
seek to divert him from the holy enterprise. But all these precautions
of the pope, with the example of the king and the indulgences of the
crusade, were powerless in inducing the nation to take arms, or in
persuading the _white companies_ to _leave the chamber_, as they called
the kingdom they desolated with their brigandages. The time fixed for
the expedition was very near at hand, and nothing was ready; there was
neither an army nor a fleet. It was at this period King John died in
London, whither he had returned to offer himself as an hostage for the
duke of Anjou, who had escaped from prison; and perhaps also to get rid
of the cares of an enterprise which he had no means of executing or
directing with success.

The pope trembled in Avignon, and was compelled to use his utmost
efforts to free himself from these formidable bands, whose leaders
styled themselves _the friends of God and the enemies of all the
world_. History says that he employed in his contests with them the
small quantity of money which had been raised for the crusade, and that
this excited violent murmurs. In this state of things, Charles IV.,
emperor of Germany, in concert with the king of Hungary, proposed to
take the companies into their pay, and send them against the Turks.
If this project had been executed, we should have been able to join
the name of Bertrand Duguesclin to the glorious names that adorn the
pages of this history; the Breton hero was to have been the leader of
the troops destined to contend with the Mussulmans on the banks of the
Danube. The sovereign pontiff himself wrote several letters to him to
induce him to take part in this crusade; but the project of Charles IV.
was in the end abandoned, and Duguesclin led the white companies into
Spain.

The king of Cyprus, however, had succeeded in enrolling under his
banners a great number of adventurers of all sorts and conditions,
men who were accustomed to live amidst perils, and who were attracted
by the hope of pillaging the richest countries of the east. The
republic of Venice did not disdain to take part in an expedition from
which her commerce was likely to derive great advantages. Peter of
Lusignan likewise received succours from the brave knights of Rhodes,
and, on his return to the isle of Cyprus, he embarked at the head
of ten thousand men to realize his projects of conquests over the
infidels. The Crusaders, to whom the pope sent a legate, went to attack
Alexandria, which they found almost without defence. When the place had
fallen into their power, the king of Cyprus wished that they should
fortify themselves in it, and there await the armies of Cairo; but
his soldiers and allies could not resist their inclination to plunder
a flourishing city, and fearing to be surprised by the Mamelukes,
they set fire to Alexandria, and abandoned it on the fourth day after
the conquest. Without subduing the Mussulmans, they irritated them.
After the precipitate departure of the Crusaders, the Egyptian people,
listening to nothing but hatred and vengeance, indulged in all sorts of
violence against the unfortunate Christians who dwelt in Egypt. By the
orders of the sultan of Cairo, everything was seized that belonged to
the Venetians; and the Mamelukes, having prepared a fleet, threatened,
in their turn, to make descents upon the isles of Rhodes and Cyprus.
Again the nations of the West were applied to; the pope intreated all
Christian princes to take arms against the infidels; but not one of
them would assume the cross, and the king of Cyprus was left alone, to
fight out the war he had provoked.

To the ardour for crusades, in the minds of European warriors, had
succeeded a passion for distinguishing and enriching themselves by
chivalric enterprizes and adventurous expeditions, in which, however,
some remembrances of the holy wars were always mingled. The Genoese
having formed the project of making war upon the coasts of Barbary,
whose piratical inhabitants infested the Mediterranean, demanded a
leader and troops of the king of France. On the report alone of such
an enterprize, a crowd of warriors, eager to signalize their bravery,
issued from all the provinces; the count d’Auvergne, the sieur de
Coucy, Guy de la Trimouille, and Messire Jean de Vienne, admiral of
France, solicited the honour of combating the infidels in Africa;
fourteen hundred knights and nobles, under the orders of the duke of
Bourbon, repaired to Genoa, and embarked on board the fleet of that
republic; the French and the Genoese, the first led by a desire for
booty and the love of glory, the latter by the more positive interests
of their commerce, went to this war beyond the sea as to a banquet.
“Beautiful and pleasant,” says Froissart, “was it to behold the order
of their departure, and how those banners, pennons, and streamers,
fairly and richly wrought with the arms of the noble knights, floated
to the wind and glistened in the sun; and to hear those trumpets and
clarions sound and resound, and other musicians performing their parts,
with pipes, flutes, and macaires, as well as the sound and the voice
which issued from them, reverberate over all the sea.” After a few
days’ sailing, the Christian army arrived on the coast of Barbary,
and laid siege to the city of _Africa_. The inhabitants offered some
resistance, and not being able to conceive why they were thus attacked
by an enemy they did not know, and of whom they had never heard, they
sent deputies to the camp of the Christians to demand of them what
motive had brought them beneath their walls. The Genoese, doubtless,
reminded the deputies of the piracies carried on in the Mediterranean
and upon the coasts of Italy; but the knights could not allege any
grievance, and must have felt considerably embarrassed how to answer
the questions of the besieged. Froissart, who gives an account of this
expedition, informs us that the duke of Bourbon called a council of the
principal leaders, and after they had deliberated upon the question
proposed by the Saracens, he addressed this reply to them, which we
shall report in the old language as near that of the times as we are
able: “They who demand why war is made against them, must know that
their lineage and race put to death and crucified the son of God named
Jesus Christ, and that we wish to avenge upon them this fact and evil
deed. Further, they do not believe in the holy baptism, nor in the
Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ; and all these things being
considered is why we hold the Saracens and all their sect as enemies.”
The besieged were not likely to be convinced by this explanation, “so,”
adds the good Froissart, “they only laughed at it, and said it was
neither reasonable nor proved, for it was the Jews who put Christ to
death, and not they.”

The French knights had more bravery than knowledge, and were much more
expert in fighting than in reasoning. They prosecuted the siege and
made several assaults, but in all their attacks met with a determined
resistance. They were, however, persuaded that Heaven declared in their
favour, and performed miracles to assure them the victory. It was said
in the camp, that a battalion of ladies in white had appeared amidst
the combatants, and created great terror among the Saracens. They
likewise told of a miraculous dog which God had sent to the Christian
soldiers as a vigilant sentinel, and which had several times prevented
their being surprised by the Mussulmans. We repeat these marvellous
stories, in order to exhibit the spirit of the knights, who saw nothing
but ladies under circumstances in which the early Crusaders would have
seen saints and angels. The story of the miraculous dog serves to prove
that the French warriors kept but a bad watch around their camp, and
that they carried on the siege with more bravery than prudence. Several
battles were fought, in which the most rash lost their lives. The
heat of the climate and the season gave birth to contagious diseases.
In proportion as obstacles multiplied around them, the ardour of the
besiegers inclined daily towards depression. Discord, likewise, broke
out in the Christian army, in which the French and the Genoese mutually
reproached each other with their miseries: winter was drawing near, and
they despaired of reducing the place; the duke of Bourbon resolved to
raise the siege, and to return to Europe with his knights and soldiers.

During several months no news of this expedition had arrived in
France; processions were made and public prayers were put up in all
the provinces to ask of Heaven the safe return of the Crusaders. Old
chronicles inform us,—“that the lady of Coucy, the lady of Sully, the
dauphiness of Auvergne, and all the ladies of France whose lords and
husbands were engaged in this voyage, were in great dismay for them
whilst the voyage lasted; and when the news came to them that they had
already passed the sea, they were all much rejoiced.”

This expedition, which the Genoese had promoted with the intention
of defending their commerce against the brigandages of pirates,
only served to increase the evil they wished to remedy; vengeance,
indignation, and fear armed the infidels against the Christians in
every direction. Vessels issued from all the coasts of Africa, covered
the Mediterranean, and intercepted the communications with Europe; the
merchandizes which had been accustomed to flow from Damascus, Cairo,
and Alexandria, no longer appeared; and the historians of the times
deplore, as a calamity, the impossibility of procuring spices in either
France or Germany.

The war which had begun between Egypt and the kingdom of Cyprus was
prosecuted with equal animosity on both sides. Whilst the sultan of
Cairo threatened the poor remains of the Christian colonies of the
East, the king of Cyprus and the knights of Rhodes spread terror along
all the coasts of Syria; in one incursion they took possession of
Tripoli, and gave the city up to the flames. Tortosa, Laodicea, and
Belinas met with the same fate: this manner of making war in a country
that they professed to wish to conquer for the sake of delivering it,
excited everywhere the fury of the Mussulmans, without raising the
hopes or the courage of the Christians who dwelt there. Pilgrimage
to the Holy Land became impracticable, and, during several years, no
European Christians were able to visit Jerusalem.

The sultan of Egypt, however, after many fruitless efforts to avenge
the expedition against Alexandria, made peace with the king of Cyprus
and the knights of Rhodes. It was agreed that the prisoners should be
liberated on both sides, and that the king of Cyprus should receive
half of the dues levied upon the merchandize which entered at Tyre,
Berouth, Sidon, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Damascus. The treaty
regulated the tribute which pilgrims should pay in those places of
the Holy Land to which their devotion called them. The sultan of
Egypt restored to the knights of St. John the house they had formerly
possessed in Jerusalem, and the knights had permission to cause the
churches of the holy sepulchres of Bethlehem, of Nazareth, &c. to be
repaired.

Europe at this period turned its eyes from countries which had so long
excited its veneration and enthusiasm to direct them towards regions
invaded or threatened by the Turks. We have seen, towards the end of
the eleventh century, hordes from this nation spread themselves as
conquerors over the whole of Asia. It may be remembered that it was
their invasion of Palestine, and their violent domination over the holy
city, which roused Christendom, and provoked the first crusade. Their
power, which then extended as far as Nice, and which, even at that
time, alarmed the Greeks, was checked by the victorious armies of the
West. The Turks of whom we are now speaking, and of whom Christendom,
towards the end of the fourteenth century, began to be very much in
dread, like those who had preceded them, drew their origin from the
Tartars. Their warlike tribes, formerly established in Carismia, had
been driven thence by the successors of Gengiskhan; and the remains of
this conquering nation, after ravaging Syria and Mesopotamia, came, a
few years before the first crusade of St. Louis, to seek an asylum in
Asia Minor.

The weakness of the Greeks and the division of the Mussulman princes
enabled them to conquer several provinces, and to found a new state
among the ruins of several empires. The terror inspired by their fierce
and brutal valour facilitated their progress, and opened for them the
road to Greece. Countries which had been the cradle of civilization, of
the arts, and of knowledge, soon succumbed beneath the laws of Ottoman
despotism.

There can be no doubt that despotism, such as it was known then in
Asia, and as it is seen in our days, is the most fragile of human
institutions. The violent measures which it took to preserve itself,
showed plainly that it itself felt a consciousness of its own
fragility. When we see it immolate all the laws of nature to its own
laws, hold the sword constantly suspended over all that approach it,
and itself experience more fear than it inspires, we are tempted to
believe that it has no veritable support. Whilst reading the oriental
history of the middle ages, we are astonished to see all those empires
which the genius of despotism raised in Asia, fall almost without
resistance, and disappear from the scene of the world. But we must
admit, when this monstrous government supports itself upon religious
ideas, and upon the prejudices and passions of a great nation, it has
also its popular ascendancy; it is also, to employ a mode of speaking
very common at present, the expression of all its wills, and nothing
can resist its action, or arrest the development of its power.

Thus arose the Ottoman empire, which had for its springs of action
a hatred of the Christians, and the conquest of the Greek empire,
and which sustained itself by the double fanaticism of religion and
victory. The Turks had but two ideas, or rather two ever-acting
passions, which with them supplied the place of patriotism,—to extend
their dominions and propagate the Mussulman faith. The ambition which
led the sovereign to conquer Christian provinces, was found to be
that of the whole nation, accustomed to enrich themselves by all the
violences of war, and who believed they obeyed the most sacred precept
of the Koran, by exterminating the race of infidels. If the prince was
unceasingly obliged to animate the religious enthusiasm and the warlike
ardour of his subjects, the subjects, in their turn, kept the prince
as constantly in exercise. The absolute leader of the Ottomans might
commit all sorts of crimes with impunity; but he could not live long
in a state of peace with his neighbours, without risking his authority
and his life. The Turks could not endure either a pacific prince, or a
prince unfortunate in war; so thoroughly were they persuaded that they
ought to be always fighting, and that they ought always to conquer. The
Ottoman people, to whom nothing was good or right but conquest, would
obey none but a conqueror; and if they consented to be slaves, and
tremble beneath the frown of a master, it was upon the sole condition
that this all-powerful master should carry abroad the terror of his
arms, and should give chains to other nations.

The Ottoman dynasty which began with the Turkish nation and gave
its name to it, that dynasty, always the object of veneration, and
respected by revolt itself, has presented by its stability a new
spectacle in the East. It has exhibited to the world a succession of
great princes, who have in history almost all the same physiognomy, and
resemble each other in their pride, their ambition and their military
genius: which proves that all these barbarian heroes were formed by
their national manners, and that among the Turks, there is but one
single road to greatness. We may judge what advantages this harmony
between subjects and sovereign must have given to the Ottoman nation,
in its wars against the Christians, or even against other Mussulman
people.

Whilst the only defence of Europe consisted in feudal troops which
were assembled at certain periods, and could not be held beneath their
banners for any length of time together, the Ottomans were the only
people who had a regular army always under arms. Their warriors, always
animated by one same spirit, had moreover the advantage of discipline
over the insubordinate chivalry of the Franks, who were constantly
agitated by discord, and were put in action by a thousand different
passions.

As the population of the Turks was not always sufficient for their
armies, they forced each family of the countries they conquered to give
up a fifth part of its male children for the military service. They
thus levied a tribute upon the population of the Christians, and the
sons of the effeminate Greeks became those invincible janissaries who
were one day to besiege Byzantium, and destroy even the ruins of the
empire of the Cæsars. Such were the new people who were about to place
themselves between the East and the West, and engross all the attention
of Christian Europe, until that time occupied with the deliverance of
the holy places.

When we are acquainted with the power and the character of the
Ottomans, we are astonished at seeing what remained of the Greek empire
subsist a long time in their vicinity. We must here resume from a past
period, the history of the feeble successors of Constantine, sometimes
forming alliances with the Turks ready to plunder them, at others,
imploring the assistance of the Latins, whom they hated, and seeking to
awaken the spirit of the crusades whose consequences they dreaded.

At the period of the first invasions of Greece by the Turks, the
emperor Andronicus sent an embassy to the Pope, to promise him to obey
the Romish Church, and to request of him apostolic legates, with an
army capable of driving away the infidels and opening the route to the
Holy Sepulchre. Cantacuzenes, who followed the example of Andronicus,
said to the envoys from the sovereign pontiff: “I shall consider it my
glory to serve Christendom; my states shall afford the Crusaders a free
and safe passage; my troops, my vessels, my treasures shall be devoted
to the common defence, and my fate will be worthy of envy if I obtain
the crown of martyrdom.” Clement VI., to whom Cantacuzenes addressed
himself, died without having been able to interest the Christian
warriors in the fate of Constantinople. A short time afterwards,
the emperor buried himself in a cloister; and the brother _Josaphat
Christodulus_, confounded among the monks of Mount Athos, troubled
himself no longer with a crusade among the Latins.

Under the reign of John Palæologus, the progress of the Turks became
more alarming. The emperor himself went to solicit the aid of the
sovereign pontiff. After having, in a public ceremony, kissed the hands
and feet of the pope, he acknowledged the double _procession_[69]
of the Holy Ghost, and the supremacy of the Church of Rome. Touched
by this humble submission, the pope protested he would come to the
succour of the Greeks; but when he applied to the sovereigns of Europe,
he could obtain nothing from them but vain promises. At the moment
at which Palæologus was about to embark on his return to the East,
he was arrested by his creditors, and remained thus during several
months, without the pope or the princes he had come to solicit, and who
had promised to assist him in the deliverance of his empire, making
the least attempt to deliver him himself. Palæologus returned to
Constantinople, to his divided family; and his subjects, who despised
him, waited in vain for the performance of the promises of the pope
and the European monarchs. In his despair, he at length formed the
resolution of imploring the clemency of the sultan Amurath, and of
purchasing by a tribute, permission to continue to reign over the wreck
of his empire. He complained of this hard necessity to the pontiff
of Rome, who caused a new crusade to be preached; but the Christian
monarch beheld with indifference, a prince who had returned to the
bosom of the Catholic Church, condemned to declare himself the vassal
of infidels. The emperor of Byzantium and the head of the Church,
by promising, the one, to arm the West in the cause of Greece, and
the other, to subject the Greeks to the Roman Church, had formed
engagements that they every day found it more difficult to fulfil.
Whilst they were reciprocally upbraiding each other with not having
kept their word, Amurath, who accomplished his threats better than the
pope and the Christian princes did their promises, added new rigours
to the fate of Palæologus, and interdicted even the repairing of the
ramparts of his capital. Again the supplications to the sovereign were
renewed, and again these supplications were passed on to the monarchs
of Christendom; but they made no reply, or at most contented themselves
with expressing pity for the emperor and people of Byzantium.

There is no doubt that the Greek emperors stood in great need of
succour from the Latins, but this pusillanimous policy, which
unceasingly invoked the assistance of other nations, only proclaimed
the weakness of the empire, and necessarily deprived the Greeks, in
the hour of peril, of all confidence in their own strength. On the
other side, these cries of alarm, which constantly resounded throughout
Europe, met with nothing but incredulous minds and indifferent hearts.
It was in vain that the warriors of the West heard it for ever repeated
that Constantinople was the barrier of Christendom; they could not
consider a city which was unable to provide for its own defence, and
was always in want of succour, as a barrier capable of arresting the
course of a powerful enemy. When Gregory XI. solicited the emperor of
Germany to assist Constantinople, that prince replied sharply that the
Greeks had opened the gates of Europe to the Turks, and _let the wolf
into the sheep-fold_.

At this time the miserable remains of the empire of the Cæsars was
comprised within the extent of less than twenty leagues, and in this
narrow space there was an empire of Byzantium, and an empire of Rodesto
or Selivrea; the princes, whom ties of blood ought to have united,
quarrelled with inveterate fury for the rags of the imperial purple.
Brother was armed against brother, and father and son declared open
war; all the crimes that had formerly been inspired by the ambition of
obtaining the sceptre of the Roman world, were still committed for the
advantage of reigning over a few miserable cities. Such was the empire
of the East, upon which the Ottoman dominions continued on all sides to
encroach.

At the period of which we are speaking, all the princes of the family
of Palæologus having been commanded to repair to the court of Bajazet,
obeyed his supreme order tremblingly; and if they came out safe and
sound from the palace of the sultan, which was for them the den of the
lion, it was because pity disarmed the executioner, and because the
contempt they inspired among the Mussulmans was their safeguard. The
Ottoman emperor contented himself with commanding Manuel, the son and
successor of John Palæologus, not to deliver Constantinople up to him,
but to remain shut up in it as in a prison, under the penalty of losing
both his crown and his life.

Whilst the Greeks were thus trembling in the presence of the Turks,
the janissaries passed through the straits of Thermopylæ without
obstruction, and advanced into the Peloponnesus. On the other side,
Bajazet, for whom the rapidity of his conquests procured the surname
of _Iberim_, or _Lightning_, invaded the country of the Servians,
afterwards that of the Bulgarians, and was preparing to carry the war
into Hungary.

A deplorable schism then divided Christendom. Two popes shared the
empire of the Church, and the European republic had no longer a head
that could warn it of its dangers, an organ that could express its
wishes and its fears, or a tie that could bind together its forces;
religious opinions had no longer sufficient influence to bring about a
crusade, and Christendom had nothing left to defend it but the spirit
of chivalry, and the warlike character of some of the nations of Europe.

The ambassadors whom Manuel sent into the West, repeating the eternal
lamentations of the Greeks over the barbarities of the Turks, solicited
in vain the piety of the faithful. The envoys of Sigismund, king of
Hungary, were more fortunate in their appeal to the bravery of the
knights and barons of France. Charles VI. had not renounced, if the
historians of the time may be believed, the idea of undertaking some
great enterprise against the enemies of the true faith: “in order,”
says Froissart, “to free the souls of his predecessors, King Philip,
of excellent memory, and King John, his grandfather.” The Hungarian
envoys took care to insinuate in their speeches, that the sultan
of the Turks held Christian chivalry in contempt; nothing more was
wanting to inflame the ardour of the French warriors; and when their
monarch declared his intention of entering into the league against the
infidels, every gallant knight in the kingdom flew to arms. This brave
band was commanded by the duke de Nevers, son of the duke of Burgundy,
a young prince whose rash courage afterwards procured for him the
surname of Jean-sans-Peur (John the Fearless). Among other leaders were
the count de la Marche, Henry and Philip de Bar, relations of the king
of France, Philip of Artois, constable of the kingdom; John of Vienne,
admiral; the sieur de Coucy, Guy de la Tremouille, and the marshal de
Boucicault, whose name is mixed with the history of every war of his
time.

All ideas of glory, all sentiments of religion and chivalry were
bound up with this expedition. The leaders ruined themselves to make
preparations for their voyage, and to astonish the East by their
magnificence; the people implored the protection of Heaven for the
success of their arms. The enterprise of the new Crusaders was already
compared to that of Godfrey of Bouillon, and the poets of the times
celebrated the near deliverance of the Holy Land.

The French army, in which were fourteen hundred knights and as many
squires, traversed Germany, and was increased on its way by a crowd of
warriors from Austria and Bavaria. When they arrived on the banks of
the Danube, they found the entire nobility of Hungary and Bohemia under
arms. Whilst reviewing the numerous soldiers thus assembled to oppose
the Turks, Sigismund exclaimed with delight: “If heaven were to fall,
the lances of the Christian army would stop it in its descent.”

Never was a war begun under more happy auspices; not only had the
spirit of chivalry drawn together a great number of warriors beneath
the banners of the cross, but several maritime nations of Italy had
taken up arms for the defence of their eastern commerce. A Venetian
fleet, commanded by the noble Mocenigo, joined the vessels of the Greek
emperor and of the knights of Rhodes near the mouth of the Danube, to
procure the triumph of the standard of the Franks in the Hellespont,
whilst the Christian army should march against Constantinople.

As soon as the signal for war was given, nothing could resist the
impetuous valour of the Crusaders; they beat the Turks everywhere; they
took several towns of Bulgaria and Servia, and laid siege to Nicopolis:
happy had it been if these first advantages had not given them a blind
confidence in victory!

The French knights, who were always found at the head of the Christian
army, could not believe that Bajazet would dare to attack them; and
when it was announced to them that the sultan, with his army, was
drawing near, they chastised the bold scout who gave them the first
intelligence of it. The Mussulman army, however, had crossed Mount
Hemus, and was advancing towards Nicopolis. When the two armies were in
presence of each other, Sigismund conjured his allies to moderate their
warlike ardour, and to wait for a favourable opportunity of attacking
an enemy with whom they were totally unacquainted. The duke de Nevers
and the young nobles who accompanied him, listened with impatience to
the advice of the Hungarians, and believed that they were desirous
of disputing with them the honour of beginning the fight. Scarcely
had the standard of the crescent[70] met their eyes, than they rushed
out of the camp and fell upon the enemy; the Turks retreated, and
appeared to fly; the French pursued them in a disorderly manner, and
soon became separated from the Hungarian army. All at once, clouds of
spahis and janissaries poured down from the neighbouring forests, in
which they had been placed in ambush. All about the country, pikes
had been planted to impede the march of cavalry. The French warriors
being unable either to advance or retreat, and surrounded by an
innumerable army, no longer fought to conquer, but to die with glory,
and sell their lives dearly. After having, during several hours,
carried slaughter into the enemy’s ranks, all the French engaged in the
conflict either perished by the swords of the Mussulmans, or were made
prisoners.

Bajazet, after this first victory, directed all his forces against
the Hungarian army, which terror had already seized, and which was
dispersed at the first shock. Sigismund, who, on the morning of
that day, had counted a hundred thousand men beneath his banners,
threw himself into a fishing-boat, and coasting along the shores of
the Euxine, found refuge in Constantinople, where his mere presence
announced his defeat, and spread consternation.

Such were the fruits of the presumption and want of discipline of the
French warriors. History has lamented their reverses more than it has
blamed their conduct; it has satisfied itself with saying, that in
order to conquer the Turks, the Hungarians should have shown the valour
of the French, or the French should have imitated the prudence of the
Hungarians.

Bajazet, who was wounded in the battle, proved barbarous after victory.
Some historians have said that the sultan had to avenge the death of
many Mussulman captives, who had been massacred by the Christian army.
He commanded all the prisoners, many of whom were wounded and plundered
of their clothes, to be brought before him, and then gave order to his
janissaries to slaughter them before his eyes. Three thousand French
warriors were immolated to his vengeance; but he spared the duke de
Nevers, the count de la Marche, the sieur de Coucy, Philip of Artois,
the count de Bar, Marshal Boucicault, and some other leaders, on
account of the ransom he hoped to procure for them.

When fame carried the news of so great a disaster into France, the
first who spoke of it were threatened with being thrown into the Seine:
many were imprisoned in the châtelet of Paris by the king’s orders.
At length the most sinister reports were confirmed by the account of
messire de Hély, whom Bajazet sent into France to announce the defeat
of the Christians and the captivity of their leaders. This intelligence
spread desolation through both the court of Charles VI. and the kingdom
of France. Froissart adds, in his natural style, “that the high dames
of France were much enraged, and had good cause, for this affected
their hearts too closely.”

In order to mitigate the wrath of the Turkish emperor, Charles VI.
sent him magnificent presents. Messengers passing through Hungary
and the territory of Constantinople, bore to the sultan white falcons
from Norway, fine scarlet cloths, white and red linens from Rheims,
_draps de hautes-lices_, or tapestries, worked at Arras, in Picardy,
representing the history of Alexander, “which thing,” add contemporary
chronicles, “was very agreeable to all persons of worth and honour
to look upon.” At the court of France means could not be devised for
sending into Turkey the money required for the liberation of the
princes and nobles detained in the prisons of Bajazet. A banker of
Paris performed that which no sovereign of Europe could then have done;
in concert with some merchants of Genoa, he negotiated for the ransom
of the prisoners, and undertook to pay for this ransom the sum agreed
upon, of two hundred thousand ducats.

The noble captives, whom the sultan had dragged in his train as far
as Brusa, at length were allowed to return to Europe. Of the number,
all regained their native country, with the exception of two: Guy of
Tremouille died in the isle of Rhodes. The lady de Coucy, who was
incapable of consolation, sent a faithful knight among the Turks, to
learn the fate of her husband, and the knight returned with the fatal
intelligence that the sieur de Coucy had died in his prison.

When the duke de Nevers, with his companions in misfortune, quitted
the camp of Bajazet, the sultan addressed the following words to him,
as reported by Froissart:—“Count de Nevers, I know right well and
am informed that thou art in thine own country a great lord, and the
son of a great lord. Thou art young; thou mayest, perchance, take as
an injury that requires vengeance that which has befallen thee in thy
first chivalry, and wouldst willingly, to recover thy honour, assemble
forces to come and give me battle; if I suspected this, and if it
were my will, I would make thee swear upon thy faith and upon the law
that thou shouldst never arm thyself against me, nor any of those
that are in thy company; but no, I will neither require thee nor them
to take this oath; but I wish to tell thee that if, when thou shalt
have returned, it may please thee to assemble a power to come against
me, thou wilt find me always ready and prepared for both thee and thy
people.”

This speech, which exhibited all the Ottoman pride, must, without
doubt, have been a lesson for young warriors, whose mad presumption had
brought on all the evils of the war. They despised Bajazet before their
defeat; and his haughty disdain after victory could not appear in their
eyes a vain bravado. “So,” says Froissart, “they remembered it well as
long as they lived.”

On their return to France, the noble knights were received with the
interest that unfortunate bravery inspires. The court of Charles
VI. and that of Burgundy were never tired of hearing them recount
their exploits, their tragical adventures, and the miseries of their
captivity; they told wonders of the magnificence of Bajazet; and when
they repeated the speeches of the sultan, who was accustomed to _say
that he would be lord over all the world, that he would yet come to
Rome, and make his horse eat his oats on the altar of St. Peter_; when
they spoke of the armies which the emperor raised daily to accomplish
his menaces, what fear must, doubtless, have been mixed in the minds of
his auditors with feelings of curiosity and surprise.

The accounts of the duke de Nevers and his companions awakened,
however, the emulation of the warriors, and their misfortunes in Asia
inspired less compassion than a desire to avenge their defeat. A new
expedition against the Turks was soon announced in France, and a crowd
of young nobles and knights eagerly took up arms. The duke of Orleans,
the brother of the king, was inconsolable at not being able to obtain
permission to place himself at their head, and go with them to combat
the infidels. It was the Marshal Boucicault, scarcely returned from
captivity, who led these new Crusaders into the East. Their arrival
on the shores of the Bosphorus delivered Byzantium, which was then
besieged by Bajazet. Their exploits raised the courage of the Greeks,
and redeemed the honour of the soldiers of the West among the Turks.
When, after a year of labours and glorious combats, they returned to
their own country, the Greek emperor Manuel believed he saw fresh evils
ready to overwhelm him, and he resolved to follow Marshal Boucicault
and solicit more assistance from Charles VI.; thus placing all the
hopes of his empire in the French warriors. He was received with great
honours on his passage through Italy; when he had crossed the Alps,
brilliant festivities awaited him in all the great cities. At two
leagues from Paris he found Charles VI., who, with all his nobles,
had come out to meet him. He made his public entry into the capital,
clothed in a robe of white silk, and mounted on a white horse, marks of
supreme rank among the Franks. It was gratifying to see a successor of
the Cæsars imploring the arms of chivalry; and the confidence which he
placed in the bravery of the French, flattered the pride of the nation;
but in the condition of France at that period, it was much more easy to
offer Manuel the spectacle of tournaments, and the brilliant ceremonies
of courts, than to furnish him with the treasures and armies of which
he stood in need. Charles VI. began to feel the approach of that fatal
malady which left the field open to factions, and threw the kingdom
into the greatest misfortunes. England, whose assistance the emperor
of Constantinople likewise solicited, was disturbed by the usurpation
of Henry of Lancaster; and if the English monarch then took the cross,
it was less with the intention of succouring the Greeks than to divert
attention from his own injustice, and to have a pretext for levying
imposts upon his people. At the same time, the deposition of Winceslaus
set the whole German empire in motion; and the nascent heresy of John
Huss already gave the signal for the disorders that were destined
to trouble Bohemia during the fifteenth century. Amidst all these
agitations in Christendom, the only power that could have reëstablished
harmony was itself divided, and the Catholic Church, still a prey to
the rival pretensions of two pontiffs, could neither give its attention
to promote peace among the Christians, nor war against the Turks.

This state of France and Europe completely destroyed all the hopes of
the Greek emperor. After passing two years in Paris, without obtaining
anything, he determined to leave the West, and having embarked at
Venice, he stopped in the Peloponnesus, where he waited patiently
till Fortune should herself take charge of the entire ruin or the
deliverance of his empire.

This deliverance, which could no longer be expected from the Christian
powers, arrived all at once by means of a people still more barbarous
than the Turks, whose conquests made the entire East tremble.
Tamerlane, or Timour, from the bosom of civil wars, had been elevated
to the throne of the Moguls, and revived in the north of Asia the
formidable empire of Gengishan. History is scarcely able to follow this
new conqueror in his gigantic expeditions. The imagination is terrified
at the rapidity with which, to make use of an expression of Timour
himself, he carried “the destroying wind of desolation” from Zagathaï
to the Indus, and from the Indus to the icy deserts of Siberia. Such
was the scourge that Heaven sent to destroy the menacing pride of
Bajazet. The historians of the times are not agreed as to the motives
which armed the leader of the Moguls against the Ottoman emperor; some
attribute Tamerlane’s determination to the complaints of the Mussulman
princes of Asia Minor, whom the sultan of the Turks had driven from
their states; others, faithful to the spirit of their age, and seeking
the causes of great events in celestial phenomena, explain the invasion
of the Tartars by the appearance of a comet, which was visible during
two months to affrighted Asia. Disdaining marvellous explanations, we
will confine ourselves to saying that peace could not last between
two men urged on by the same ambition, and who were not likely to
pardon each other for having at the same time entertained the thought
of conquering the world. Their character, as well as their policy,
is plainly enough indicated in the violent threats they reciprocally
addressed to each other before hostilities, and which became the signal
for the most sanguinary catastrophes.

Tamerlane, having set out from Samarcand, first reduced Seborto,
and as if he wished to give Bajazet, before he attacked him, the
spectacle of the ravages which accompanied his arms everywhere, he all
at once directed the course of his Tartar hordes towards Syria and
the provinces governed by the Mamelukes of Egypt. The valour of his
soldiers, the discords of his enemies, the treachery and perfidy which
he never disdained to call in to the assistance of his power, opened
for him the gates of Aleppo, Damascus, and Tripoli. Torrents of blood
and pyramids of human heads marked the passage of the Mogul conqueror.
His approach spread terror everywhere, as well among the Christians as
among the Mussulmans; and although he boasted in his discourses of
avenging the cause of the oppressed, Jerusalem might, on this occasion,
be grateful that he did not think of delivering her.

At length the Tartars advanced towards Asia Minor. Timour traversed
Anatolia with an army of eight hundred thousand men. Bajazet, who
raised the siege of Constantinople to come to meet his redoubtable
adversary, encountered him in the plains of Ancyra. At the end of a
battle which lasted three days, the Ottoman emperor lost at once his
empire and his liberty. The Greeks, to whom fame soon brought the news
of this victory, tremblingly returned thanks to their fierce liberator;
but the indifference with which he received their embassy, proved that
he had had no intention of meriting their gratitude. Arrived on the
shores of the Bosphorus, the conqueror of Bajazet directed his looks
and his projects towards the West; but the master of the vast kingdoms
of Asia had not a single barque in which to transport himself to the
other side of the canal. Thus Constantinople, after having escaped the
yoke of the Ottomans, had the good fortune to escape also the presence
of the Tartars, and Europe saw this violent tempest dissipate itself at
a distance from her.

The conqueror vented his anger upon the city of Smyrna, which was
defended by the Knights of Rhodes. This city was carried by assault,
delivered up to pillage, and reduced to ashes; the Mogul emperor
returned to Samarcand in triumph, dragging the sultan Bajazet in his
train, and meditating by turns the conquest of Africa, the invasion of
the West, and a war against China.

After the battle of Ancyra, several princes of the family of Bajazet
disputed the ravaged provinces of the Ottoman empire. If the Franks had
then appeared in the Strait of Galliopoli and in Thrace, they might
have profited by the defeat and discords of the Turks, and have driven
them back beyond the Taurus; but the indifference of the Christian
states, with the perfidy and cupidity of some of the maritime nations
of Europe, allowed the Ottoman dynasty time and means to renovate its
depressed power.

The Greeks derived no more advantage from the victory of Tamerlane
than the Latins. Twenty years after the battle of Ancyra, the Ottomans
had retaken all their provinces; their armies again environed
Constantinople, and it is at this point we may apply to the power of
the Turks the oriental comparison of that serpent of the desert which
an elephant had crushed in its passage, which joins its dispersed rings
together again, raises its head by degrees, reseizes the prey it had
abandoned, and clasps it within its monstrous folds.

As long as the Greek emperors were in no fear for the safety of their
capital, they kept up very little intercourse with the Christian
princes of Europe; but upon the appearance of danger, the court of
Byzantium renewed its supplications and its promises of obedience to
the Church of Rome. A conversation of Manuel, reported by Phrantza,
throws a light upon the situation of the Greeks, and upon the policy of
the timid successors of Constantine. “The only resource we have left
against the Turks,” said this prince to his son, “is their fear of our
union with the Latins, and the terror with which the warlike nations of
the West inspire them. Whenever you are pressed by the infidels, send
to the court of Rome, and prolong the negotiations, without ever taking
a decisive part.” Manuel added, that the vanity of the Latins and
the obstinacy of the Greeks would always prevent any real or durable
harmony; and that a union of any kind with the pope, by arousing the
passions of both parties, would only give Byzantium up to the mercy of
the barbarians.

Such counsels, which announce but little frankness in the policy of the
Greeks, could not be long followed up with success. The dangers became
more pressing, the circumstances more imperative; as Christendom only
replied to vain negotiations by vain promises, the successor of Manuel
found himself obliged to give pledges of his faith and sincerity. The
idea of a council was at length adopted, in which the two churches
should come to an understanding, and should approximate. The emperor
John Palæologus and the doctors of the Greek Church repaired to
Ferrara, and afterwards to Florence. After long debates, the union
was sworn to on both sides, and solemnly proclaimed. In the West this
event was celebrated as a victory; at Constantinople it raised cries
of blasphemy, apostasy, and impiety. Thus was the prediction of Manuel
accomplished; all the efforts employed to unite opinions, only served
to raise a new barrier between the Greeks and the Latins.

At the councils of Ferrara and Florence, the deputies of the Armenians,
the Maronites, the Jacobites of Syria and Egypt, the Nestorians, and
the Ethiopians submitted, as well as the Greeks, to the pontifical
authority, and without doubt also, in the same hope of being succoured
by the Latins, and delivered from the tyranny of the Mussulmans. This
solemn proceeding was less a submission to the Holy See than a homage
rendered to the bravery of the Franks, in whom all the Christians of
Asia and Africa beheld liberators.

Pope Eugenius, however, on receiving the submission of the Greeks, had
promised to send succours to Constantinople and to the Christians of
the East. The pontiff hoped that the union of the two churches and the
preaching of a crusade would fix upon him the eyes of the Christian
world, and restore to the pontifical authority the confidence and
power of which the schisms of the West and the seditious decrees of
the council of Bâle had deprived it. He wrote to all the princes of
Christendom, exhorting them to unite to put a stop to the invasions
of the Mussulmans. Eugenius, in his letter, described all the evils
which the faithful suffered in the countries under the domination of
the barbarians. “The Turks tied troops of men and women together,
and dragged them along in their train. All the Christians whom they
condemned to slavery, were confounded with the vilest booty, and sold
like beasts of burden. In their barbarity, they separated the son from
the father, the brother from the sister, and the husband from the
wife. Those whom age or infirmities prevented from walking were killed
upon the high roads or in the middle of cities. Even infancy could not
excite their pity; they put to death innocent victims that had scarcely
begun to exist, and who, being yet ignorant of fear, smiled upon their
executioners whilst receiving the mortal blow. Every Christian family
was compelled to give up its own sons to the Ottoman empire, in the
same manner as the people of Athens had been formerly forced to send as
a tribute the flower of their youth to the monster of Crete. Wherever
the Turks had penetrated, the fields were cursed with barrenness, and
the cities were without laws or industry; the Christian religion had
no longer either priests or altars; humanity no longer either support
or asylum.” In fact, the father of the faithful forgot none of the
cruelties committed by the enemies of Christ; he could not restrain the
sadness which so many painful images caused him, and conjured princes
and nations to send assistance to the kingdom of Cyprus, the isle of
Rhodes, and particularly to Constantinople, as these were the last
bulwarks of the West.

The exhortations of the sovereign pontiff were addressed to none but
indifferent hearts in the nations of England, France, and Spain.
Neither the sentiment of humanity, nor that of patriotism, had power to
revive the enthusiasm to which the spirit of religion and chivalry had
in past times given birth. Distant crusades, whatever was their object,
began to be considered as only the work of a jealous policy, the
springs of which were set in motion, to banish the princes and nobles
whose power and wealth were coveted. In the state in which Europe then
was, such as loved war, had but too many opportunities for exercising
their bravery, without quitting their homes. The Germans, who had set
on foot forty thousand men to combat the heretics of Bohemia, remained
motionless, when the Turks were represented to them as ready to carry
the standard of Islamism to the extremities of the West.

The pope, however, was not satisfied with exhorting the faithful to
take up arms, he was desirous of setting them the example; the pontiff
levied soldiers and equipped vessels to make war against the Turks. The
maritime cities of Flanders, and the republics of Genoa and Venice,
which had great interests in the East, made some preparations; their
fleets united under the standard of St. Peter, and directed their
course towards the Hellespont. The fear of an approaching invasion
awakened the zeal of the nations inhabiting the shores of the Dneister
and the Danube. The crusade was preached in the diets of Poland
and Hungary. Upon the frontiers threatened by the barbarians, the
people, the clergy, and the nobility obeyed the voice of religion and
patriotism.

The sovereign pontiff named, as legate with the Crusaders, Cardinal
Julian, a prelate of an intrepid character of an ardent genius, arming
himself by turns with the sword of fight and with that of speech; as
redoubtable in the field of battle as in the learned contests of the
schools. After having obtained the confidence of the council of Bâle,
Cardinal Julian distinguished himself in the council of Florence, by
defending the dogmas of the Latin church. His eloquence had roused
up all Germany against the Hussites; now he burned to rouse up all
Christendom against the Turks. The army collected under the banners
of the cross had for leaders Hunniades and Ladislaus; the first, the
waywode of Transylvania, was celebrated among Christian warriors,
and the epithet of the _brigand_, which the Turks attached to his
name, denoted the hatred and terror he inspired among the infidels.
Upon the head of Ladislaus were united the two crowns of Poland and
Hungary, and he merited, by the brilliant qualities of his youth, the
love of both Poles and Hungarians. The Crusaders assembled on the
Danube, and quickly received the signal for war. The fleets of the
sovereign pontiff, of Venice, and Genoa cruised in the Hellespont.
The inhabitants of Moldavia, Servia, and Greece promised to join the
Christian army; the sultan of Caramania, the implacable enemy of
the Ottomans, was to attack them in Asia. The Greek emperor, John
Palæologus, announced great preparations, and got ready to march at the
head of an army to meet his liberators.

Hunniades and Ladislaus advanced as far as Sophia, the capital of
the Bulgarians. Two battles opened for them the passages of Mount
Hemus and the road to Byzantium. The rigours of winter alone arrested
the victorious march of the Christian warriors; and the army of the
Crusaders returned into Hungary, to await the favourable season
for renewing the war. They returned to Buda in triumph, amidst the
acclamations of an immense population. The clergy celebrated, by hymns
and thanksgivings, the first victories of the Christians, and Ladislaus
repaired, barefooted, to the church of Notre Dame, in which he hung up
the standards taken from the infidels.

Before the beginning of the war, the Mussulmans had been persuaded that
the destruction of the Christians was written in the book of destiny.
“When all the enemies of the prophet,” said they among themselves,
“shall be destroyed, each of us will have nothing to do but to guide
his plough, and look at his war-horse in his stable.” This opinion,
the offspring of pride and victory, had proved sufficient to relax the
zeal of the Ottoman warriors; and most of them remained in their homes,
whilst the Christians marched towards Adrianopolis.

When fame informed them of the victories of the Franks upon the Danube,
this blind security all at once gave place to fear. The sultan Amurath
immediately sent ambassadors to sue for peace. History is silent
as to the means of seduction employed by the Ottoman envoys to win
the victorious Crusaders; but it is well known that they succeeded
in obtaining a favourable hearing for their proposals. Peace was
determined upon in the council of the leaders of the Christian army.
The parties swore, the one upon the Koran, and the other upon the
Gospel, to a truce of ten years. This unexpected resolution irritated
the pride and zeal of Cardinal Julian, whose mission was to stimulate
the Christians to war. When he saw the leaders of the crusade unite
in a desire for peace, he preserved a haughty silence, and refused to
sign a treaty he disapproved of. The inflexible legate waited for an
opportunity in which he might give vent to his discontent, and force
the Crusaders to resume their arms. This opportunity was not long in
presenting itself.

Amurath, satisfied with having restored peace to his states, and
fatigued with earthly grandeur, renounced the cares of empire, and
buried himself in a retreat at Magnesia. The sultan of Caramania
informed the Christians that their most redoubtable enemy _had lost his
senses_, and had just exchanged the imperial crown for the cap of a
cenobite. He added that Amurath had left the supreme authority in the
hands of a child, and in his message compared this child _to a young
plant which the slightest wind might tear up by the roots_.

The same sultan was so thoroughly persuaded that the Ottoman empire was
in its decline, that he entered Anatolia at the head of an army. About
the same time reports were spread that the emperor of Constantinople
was advancing towards Thrace; that the Greeks of the Peloponnesus
had taken up arms, and that the confederate fleets still awaited a
fresh signal for war in the Hellespont. Another circumstance, not
less important, seemed calculated to awaken the warlike ardour of the
Crusaders; the victory gained near Sophia had given them a powerful
ally in Greece. In this battle, the son of John Castuct, who commanded
the van of the Ottoman army, suddenly abandoned the banners and the
religion of the Turks, to defend the worship and the heritage of his
ancestors in Albania. The messengers of Scanderberg announced to the
leaders of the Christian army, that he was ready to join them at the
head of twenty thousand Albanians, assembled under the standard of the
cross.

All these news, arriving at once, had an immediate effect in changing
men’s minds as well as the face of affairs. A fresh council was called;
Cardinal Julian arose among the leaders, and reproached them with
having betrayed both their fortune and their glory; he reproached
them in severe terms, with having signed a disgraceful peace, which
was sacrilegious, fatal to Europe, and fatal to the Church. “You had
sworn,” said he, “to combat the eternal enemies of Christendom, and
now you have sworn upon the Gospel, to lay down your arms. To which of
these two oaths will you be faithful? You have just thought proper to
conclude a treaty with the Mussulmans; but have you not also treaties
with your allies? Will you abandon these generous allies at the moment
that they are flying from all parts to your assistance, and are coming
to share the perils of a war in which God has so visibly protected your
first labours?

“But, what do I say? You not only abandon your allies, you leave,
without support and without hope, that crowd of Christians whom you
have promised to deliver from an insupportable yoke, and who must now
remain a prey to all the outrages of the Mussulmans whom your victories
have irritated. The groans of so many victims will pursue you into your
retreat, and will accuse you before God and before men.

“You close for ever the gates of Asia against the Christian phalanxes,
and you restore to the Mussulmans the hopes they had lost of invading
the countries of Christendom. To what interests, answer me, have you
sacrificed your own glory and the safety of the Christian world? Had
not war already given you all that the sultan Amurath promises? Would
he not have already given you still more; and do not the pledges
obtained by victory inspire more confidence than the promises of
infidels?

“What shall I say to the sovereign pontiff who has sent me to you, not
to treat with Mussulmans, but to drive them beyond the seas? What shall
I say to all the pastors of the Christian Churches, and to all the
faithful of the West, who are now offering up prayers to Heaven for the
success of your arms?

“There is no doubt that the barbarians, whom we have twice conquered,
would never have consented to a peace, if they had had the means of
carrying on the war. Do you believe they will observe the truce, when
fortune shall become more favourable to them? No; Christian warriors
cannot remain bound by an impious compact which gives up the Church
and Europe to the disciples of Mahomet. Learn that there is no peace
between God and his enemies, between truth and falsehood, between
Heaven and Hell. There is no necessity for me to absolve you from an
oath evidently contrary to religion and morality, to all that which
constitutes, among men, the sanctity and faith of promises. I exhort
you then, in the name of God, in the name of the Gospel, to resume your
arms and follow me in the road of salvation and glory.”

The safety of Christendom may, no doubt, be pleaded in extenuation of
the violence of this discourse; but impartial history, whatever may be
the reasons alleged, cannot approve of this open violation of the faith
of oaths. The leaders of the crusade might merit the reproaches of the
apostolic legate, who accused them of having made a peace disgraceful
in itself and dangerous to Christian Europe; but they certainly also
deserve the contempt of posterity for violating treaties they had so
recently concluded. When Cardinal Julian began to speak, the minds
of his auditors were already wavering; when he had finished his
discourse, the warlike ardour which animated him seized upon the whole
assembly, and manifested itself by the loud acclamations of a general
approbation. With one unanimous voice they all swore to recommence the
war, on the same spot where they had just sworn to maintain peace.

The enthusiasm of most of the leaders was at its height it scarcely
allowed them to observe that they had lost half their army. A great
number of the Crusaders had quitted their colours, some impatient to
return to their homes, but by far the greater part dissatisfied with
a treaty, which rendered their bravery and their exploits useless.
The prince of Servia, a near neighbour of the Turks, and in dread of
their vengeance, did not dare to run the risk of a new war, and sent
no troops to the army of Hunniades and Ladislaus. They waited in vain
for the reinforcements promised by Skanderberg, who was obliged to
defend Albania. There remained not more than twenty thousand men under
the banners of the cross. A chief of the Wallachians, on joining the
Crusaders with his cavalry, could not refrain from expressing his
surprise to the king of Hungary, at the smallness of his numbers;
and told him that the sultan they were going to contend with, was
frequently followed to the chase by more slaves than the Christian
warriors amounted to.

The principal leaders were advised to defer the commencement of the
war till the arrival of fresh Crusaders, or the return of those that
had left them; but Ladislaus, Hunniades, and particularly Julian,
were persuaded that God protected the defenders of the cross, and
that nothing could resist them. They set forward on their march, and
crossing the deserts of Bulgaria, encamped at Warna, on the shores of
the Black Sea.

It was there the Crusaders, instead of finding the fleet which was to
second them, learned that Amurath had left his retreat at Magnesia, and
was hastening to meet them at the head of sixty thousand combatants.
At this intelligence all the extravagant confidence infused by the
Cardinal Julian faded away, and in their despair they accused the
Greeks of having betrayed or abandoned them; and the Genoese, with
the nephew of the Pope, who commanded the Christian fleet, of having
yielded the passage of Galliopoli to the Turks. This accusation is
repeated in all the chronicles of the West; but the Turkish historians
make no mention of it; they, on the contrary, say that Amurath crossed
the Hellespont at a considerable distance from the places occupied
by the Christian fleet; and that the grand vizier, who was upon the
European shore, protected the passage of the Ottoman army by a battery
of cannon. “As soon as the troops of Amurath,” adds the Turkish
historian Coggia Effendi, “gained the shore, they offered up prayers
and thanks to the God of Mahomet, _and the zephyr of victory breathed
upon the Mussulman banners_.” The sultan pursued his march, swearing
by the prophets of Islamism, to punish its enemies for the violation
of treaties. If some authors may be believed, the emperor of the Turks
supplicated Jesus Christ himself to avenge the outrage committed
upon his name by the perjured warriors. At the approach of the
Ottomans, Hunniades and the legate advised retreat; but retreat became
impossible, and Ladislaus determined to conquer or die. The battle
began: and it was then, says the Ottoman historian, “that an infinite
number of valiant men were borne to the valley of shadows by torrents
of blood.” At the commencement of the battle both the right and left
wings of the Mussulman army were broken. Some authors say that Amurath
thought of flying, and that he was stopped by a janissary, who retained
him by the bridle of his horse; others celebrate the firm courage of
the sultan, and compare him to a rock which resists all the blasts of
the tempest. Coggia Effendi, whom we have already quoted, adds that
the Ottoman emperor addressed, upon the field of battle, a prayer to
the God of Mahomet, and conjured him with tears to remove from the
Mussulmans the bitter cup of contempt and affliction.

Fortune appeared to favour the arms of the Crusaders. A great part of
the Ottoman army fled before twenty-four thousand Christian soldiers,
and nothing could resist the impetuous courage of the king of Hungary.
A crowd of prelates and bishops, armed with cuirasses and swords,
accompanied Ladislaus, and intreated him to direct his attacks towards
the point at which Amurath still fought, defended by the bravest of his
janissaries. He listened but too willingly to their imprudent advice,
and having rushed among the enemy’s battalions, he was instantly
pierced by a thousand lances, and fell with all who had been able to
follow him. His head, fixed upon the point of a lance, and shown to
the Hungarians, spread consternation through their ranks. It was in
vain Hunniades and the bishops endeavoured to revive the courage of
the Crusaders, by telling them they were not fighting for an earthly
king, but for Jesus Christ; the whole Christian army disbanded, and
fled in the greatest disorder. Hunniades himself was carried away with
the rest: ten thousand soldiers of the cross lost their lives, and the
Turks made a great number of prisoners. Cardinal Julian perished either
in the battle or the flight.

After his victory, Amurath traversed the field of battle; and as he
observed he did not see among the Christian bodies one with a gray
beard, his vizier replied that men arrived at the age of reason would
never have attempted such a rash enterprize. These words were nothing
more than a piece of flattery addressed to the sultan; but they might,
nevertheless, serve to characterize a war in which the leaders of the
Christian armies obeyed rather the impulses of the imprudent passions
of youth, than the cooler dictates of experience and matured age.

The expeditions of the Christians against the Turks began almost all,
like this, by brilliant successes, and finished by great disasters.
Most frequently a crusade was terminated at the first or the second
battle, because the Crusaders had only valour, and were totally
deficient in qualities which could improve a victory or repair
reverses. When conquerors, they quarrelled for the glory of the fight
or the spoils of the enemy; when conquered, they were at once depressed
and discouraged, and returned to their homes, accusing each other
reciprocally of their defeats.

The battle of Warna secured to the Turks the European provinces they
had invaded, and permitted them to make fresh conquests. Amurath,
after having triumphed over his enemies, again renounced the imperial
crown, and the solitude of Magnesia once more beheld the conqueror
of the Hungarians clothed in the humble mantle of a hermit; but the
janissaries, whom he had so often led to victory, would not permit him
to renounce the world or enjoy the repose he was so anxious for. Forced
to resume the command of armies and the reins of empire, he directed
his views against Albania; and he afterwards returned to fight with
Hunniades on the shores of the Danube. He passed the remainder of his
days in making war against the Christians, and with his last breath
recommended his successor to direct his arms against Constantinople.

Mahomet II., to whom Amurath bequeathed the conquest of Byzantium, did
not succeed his father till six years after the battle of Warna. It was
then that began the days of mourning and calamity for the Greeks; and
it is at this period that history offers us, as a spectacle, a last
and terrible conflict; on the one side, an old empire whose glory had
filled the universe, and which had no defence or limits left but the
ramparts of its capital; and on the other, a new empire, the name of
which was scarcely known, and which already threatened the whole world
with invasion.

Constantine and Mahomet, elevated almost at the same time,—the one
to the throne of Otman, the other to that of the Cæsars, presented
no less difference in their characters than in their destinies. The
moderation and piety of Constantine were admired, and historians have
celebrated his calm and prudent valour in the field of battle, with
his heroic patience in reverses. Mahomet brought to the throne an
active and enterprising spirit, an ardent and passionate policy, and
an indomitable pride. It is asserted that he loved letters and the
arts; but these peaceful pursuits were not able to soften his savage
ferocity. In war, he neither spared the lives of his enemies nor of his
soldiers; and the violences of his character often ensanguined even
peace. Whilst in Constantine a monarch could be recognized brought up
in the school of Christianity, in Mahomet was as easily known a prince
formed by the warlike and intolerant maxims of the Koran. The last of
the Cæsars had all the virtues that can honour and teach the endurance
of a great misfortune. The son of Amurath exhibited the dark qualities
of a conqueror, with all the passions which, in the day of victory,
must leave nothing but despair to the vanquished.

When Mahomet succeeded to the empire, his first thought was the
conquest of Byzantium. In the negotiations which preceded the rupture
of the peace, Constantine did not conceal the weakness of the Greek
empire, and displayed all the resignation of a Christian. “My
confidence is in God,” said he to the Ottoman prince; “if it should
please him to soften your heart, I shall rejoice at that happy change;
if it should please him to deliver up Constantinople to you, I shall
submit to his will without a murmur.”

The siege of Byzantium was fixed to begin in the spring of the year
1453; and the Greeks and the Turks passed the winter in preparation
for the defence and the attack. Mahomet entered with ardour upon an
enterprise to which, for a length of time, all the wishes of the
Turkish nation and all the Ottoman policy has been directed. In the
middle of a night, having sent for his vizier: “Thou seest,” said
Mahomet, “the disorder of my couch. I have carried to it the trouble
which agitates and devours me; henceforth there will be neither repose
nor sleep for me but in the capital of the Greeks.”

Whilst Mahomet was getting together all his forces to commence the war,
Constantine Palæologus implored assistance from the nations of Europe.
Cries of alarm had so often been heard from Constantinople, that some
regarded the dangers of the Greek empire as imaginary, and others,
its ruin as inevitable. In vain Constantine promised, as all his
predecessors had done, to unite the Greek Church with the Roman Church;
the remembrance of so many promises, made in the hour of peril and
forgotten in times of safety, added to the antipathy of the Latins for
the people of Greece. The Pope exhorted feebly the warriors of the West
to take arms, and satisfied himself with sending to the Greek emperor a
legate and some ecclesiastics versed in the art of argumentation and in
the study of theology. Although the Cardinal Isidore brought with him
a considerable treasure, and had in his suite some Italian soldiers,
his arrival at Constantinople must have spread discouragement among the
Greeks, who expected other succours, and appeared to have attached a
very high value to their submission to the Church of Rome.

The princes of the Morea and the Archipelago, with those of Hungary
and Bulgaria, some, in dread of being themselves attacked, the others,
restrained by indifference or the spirit of jealousy, refused to take
any part in a war in which victory would decide their own fate. As
Genoa and Venice had counting-houses and commercial establishments at
Constantinople, two thousand Genoese soldiers and five or six hundred
Venetians presented themselves to assist in defending the city. A
troop of Catalans also arrived, an intrepid soldiery, by turns the
scourge and hope of Greece, whom a love of war and peril brought to the
imperial city. And this was all that was to represent warlike Europe
at the siege of Byzantium.

At this period, several Christian powers were at war with each other:
the continuator of Baronius remarks on this subject, that the soldiers
who then perished in battles fought in the bosom of Christendom, would
have been sufficient to disperse the Turks, and drive them back to the
outward verge of Asia. But if history, on this occasion, accuses the
nations of the West of indifference, what ought it to say of that of
the Greeks for their own defence? The efforts of Constantine to unite
the two Churches had weakened the confidence and zeal of his subjects,
who prided themselves upon being orthodox. Among the Greeks, some,
in order to owe nothing to the Latins, declared that God himself had
undertaken to save his people, and upon the faith of some prophecies
they had made, they awaited in inaction a miraculous deliverance.
Others, more dark in their scholastic reveries, were not willing that
Constantinople should be saved, because they had predicted that the
empire must perish to expiate the crime of the union. Every hope of
victory had in their eyes something impious and contrary to the will
of Heaven. When the emperor spoke of the means of safety that still
remained, and of the necessity for taking arms, these atrabilarious
doctors drew back with a kind of horror, and the multitude they had
misled ran after the monk Genadius, who, from the depth of his cell,
cried out constantly to the people, that there was nothing to be done,
and that all was lost.

When we study the whimsicalities of the human mind, that which most
affects the enlightened observer is, to see there are men whose passion
is words, whom self-love attaches to vain subtleties, and for whom the
ruin of the world would be a less painful spectacle than the triumph
of an opinion they have opposed. On the eve of the greatest perils,
Constantinople was filled with people whom hatred for the Latins made
forgetful of even the approach and menaces of the Turks. The grand
duke Notares went so far as to say that he would like better to see in
Byzantium the turban of Mahomet than the tiara of the pontiff of Rome.

It is not useless to remind our readers here, that in all these
debates there was no question that affected the truths of
Christianity,—nothing but some points of ecclesiastical discipline:
celebrating the mass in the Latin tongue, consecrating unleavened
bread, mixing some cold water in the chalice, communicating with
Azymites—these were things that were to be hated, things that were
to be feared much more than Islamism. Such were the motives for which
the Greeks repulsed the Franks, their natural allies, loaded them with
anathemas, and invoked the maledictions of Heaven upon their own city.

Amidst these deplorable disputes the voice of patriotism was never
listened to, and indifference, selfishness, and cowardice were able
to conceal themselves under the respectable appearance of religion
and orthodoxy. A great part of the population of Constantinople
had abandoned the city; among those that remained, the richest had
buried their treasures, which they might have employed in the general
defence, and which they soon lost, with their liberty and their lives.
The imperial city only contained within its bosom four thousand nine
hundred and seventy defenders, and the emperor was obliged to plunder
the churches to support them. Thus, from eight to nine thousand
combatants formed the entire garrison of Byzantium, and the last hope
of the empire of the East.

Mahomet had completed his immense preparations. As the conquest of
Byzantium and the pillage of Constantinople were the richest recompense
that could be offered to the valour of the Ottomans, all the soldiers
were, in some sort, associated with the ambition of their leader. The
warlike ardour and fanaticism which had distinguished the companions
of Omar and the first champions of Islamism were now revived. From all
the regions which extend from the chain of Taurus to the banks of the
Ebro and the Danube came crowds of warriors, attracted to the army by
the hopes of booty or the desire of distinguishing themselves in a
religious and national war. In order at once to give a clear idea of
the decay and weakness of the Greeks, and of the strength and power of
the Ottomans, it will suffice to say, that Constantinople and all that
remained of the territory of the empire contained a smaller number of
inhabitants of all kinds than Mahomet mustered soldiers beneath his
banners.

The Ottoman army set out from Adrianople at the beginning of March;
and on the sixth of April Mahomet pitched his tent before the gate of
St. Romanus. The signal for battle was speedily given on both sides.
In the early days of the siege, the Greeks and the Turks displayed all
that the art of war had invented or perfected among the ancients and
moderns. Among his formidable preparations, Mahomet had not neglected
artillery, the use of which was then spread through the West. One of
his cannons, founded under his own eyes at Adrianople, was of such
gigantic proportions, that three hundred oxen dragged it along with
difficulty, and it launched a ball of seven hundred quintals (seven
hundred pounds weight) to a distance of more than six hundred toises
(six hundred fathoms). Almost all the historians of the time speak of
this terrible instrument of war, but say very little of the effect it
produced in the field of battle. On examining with care the accounts
of contemporaries, and particularly the descriptions they have left us
of these enormous machines of bronze, which they had so much trouble
to move, we feel persuaded that at the siege of Byzantium the Ottoman
artillery inspired more fright and surprise than it did execution. The
Turks showed very little skill or zeal in seconding the Frank engineers
and artillerymen whom Mahomet had taken into his service; and it was
a great blessing for Christendom that so powerful a discovery was not
perfected at once in the hands of barbarians, whom Europe could not
have resisted if they had joined this new force to the advantages they
already possessed in war.

The Turks employed other arms and other means of attack with much more
success; such as mines dug under the ramparts, rolling towers, which
were brought close up to the walls, rams which battered the walls,
balistæ, which launched beams and stones, arrows, javelins, and even
the Greek fire, which still rivalled gunpowder, although the latter was
destined soon to make it neglected and forgotten. All these means of
destruction were employed at the same time, and assaults were renewed
unceasingly. The besieged could not avail themselves of all their
machines, from the want of hands to work them; and when we reflect on
the smallness of the number of the defenders of Constantinople, we are
astonished that they were able to resist, for more than fifty days,
the innumerable host of the Ottomans. This generous soldiery occupied
a line of more than a league in length, repelling, night and day,
the assaults of the enemy, repairing the breaches in the walls, and
making sorties; they appeared to be everywhere at the same time, and
to be equal to everything, animated by the presence of their leaders,
and particularly by the example of Constantine. Several times fortune
favoured the efforts of this heroic troop, and tingled a few gleams
of hope with the sentiment of sadness and terror which prevailed
in Constantinople. The besieged preserved one advantage, the city
was inaccessible towards the Propontis and on the side of the port.
Mahomet had assembled a numerous fleet in the canal of the Black Sea;
but it only served for the transmission of provisions and warlike
stores. The Ottoman marine could not contend with the marine of the
Greeks, particularly with that of the Franks; and the Turks themselves
acknowledged that they must yield the empire of the seas to the
Christian nations.

About the middle of the siege, five vessels from the coasts of
Italy and Greece arrived in the canal. The whole Ottoman fleet was
immediately in motion, and advanced to meet them; from their numbers
they surrounded them, and attacked them several times, with the view
of getting possession of them, or of turning them from their course.
Mahomet encouraged the combatants with voice and gesture from the
shore. When the Ottomans appeared to be failing in their attempt, he
could not restrain his anger; urging his horse into the sea, he seemed
to threaten the elements, and, like a barbarian king of antiquity, to
accuse the waves of being obstacles to his conquests. On the other
side, the Greeks, collected on the ramparts of the city, awaited the
issue of the combat in great anxiety. At length, after an obstinate and
bloody conflict, all the Turkish ships were dispersed or cast upon the
shore; and the Christian fleet, laden with provisions and soldiers,
sailed in triumph into the port of Constantinople.

The sultan burned to avenge this disgrace to his arms, and resolved
to make a last effort to render himself master of the port of
Constantinople. As the entrance of it was guarded by several large
vessels, and closed by a chain of iron that could neither be broken
nor passed, the Ottoman monarch employed an extraordinary method, which
the besieged had not foreseen, and the success of which displayed the
force of his will and the extent of his power. In a single night,
between seventy and eighty vessels, which were at anchor in the canal
of the Black Sea, were transported by land to the gulf of Ceras. The
road was covered with planks, plastered with grease, along which a
multitude of soldiers and workmen made the vessels slide. The Turkish
fleet, commanded by pilots, with sails unfurled, as if upon a maritime
expedition, advanced over a hilly country, and traversed a space of two
miles by the light of torches and flambeaux, to the sound of clarions
and trumpets, without the Genoese, who inhabited Galata, daring to
offer any opposition to its passage. The Greeks, fully occupied in
guarding their ramparts, had no suspicion of the designs of the enemy.
They could not comprehend what could be the cause or the object of all
the tumult that was heard during the whole night from the seashore,
until the dawn of day showed them the Mussulman standards floating in
their port.

We naturally here inquire what resistance was made by the vessels which
guarded the iron chain, and by those which had entered the port, after
having dispersed the Ottoman fleet. We may suppose that every warrior
who had fought in the Christian ships was then employed in defending
the ramparts of the city; or, it is probable, that the part of the
gulf in which the Turkish ships descended, was not deep enough to be
accessible to large vessels. However this may have been, the Mussulmans
lost no time in taking advantage of their success. Scarcely were the
Turkish boats launched, when a multitude of workmen were busily engaged
in constructing floating batteries on the same spot where the Venetians
made their last assault in the fifth crusade.

This bold enterprise, carried out with such audacity and success,
spread trouble and consternation among the besieged. They made several
attempts to burn the fleet and destroy the works the enemy had begun;
but they in vain had recourse to the Greek fire, which had so often
saved Constantinople from the attacks of the barbarians. Forty of
their most intrepid warriors, betrayed by their imprudent valour, and
perhaps also by the Genoese, fell into the hands of the Turks, and a
death amidst tortures was the reward of their generous devotion.

Constantine used reprisals, and exposed the heads of seventy of his
captives upon the ramparts. This mode of making war announced that
the combatants no longer listened to anything but the inspirations of
despair or the furies of vengeance. The Mussulmans, who daily received
supplies of all kinds, prosecuted the siege without intermission.
The certainty of victory redoubled their ardour; Constantinople was
assaulted on several sides at once, and the garrison, already weakened
by the conflicts and labours of a long siege, were obliged to divide
their forces to defend all the points attacked.

The repairs of the fortifications on the side of the port had been
neglected. Towards the west, several of the towers, particularly that
of St. Romanus, were falling into ruins. In this almost desperate
situation, what was, if possible, still more deplorable, the garrison
of Byzantium was possessed by the spirit of discord. Violent debates
arose between the grand duke Notares and Justiniani, who commanded the
Genoese troops. The Venetians and the Genoese were several times on
the point of coming to blows; and yet history can scarcely point out
the subjects of these unfortunate quarrels. Such was the blindness
produced by the spirit of jealousy, or rather by despair, that in this
chosen band of warriors, who were every day sacrificing their lives in
the noble cause they had embraced, it was not uncommon to hear mutual
accusations of cowardice and treachery.

Constantine endeavoured to appease them; and himself, always calm in
the midst of discord, appeared to be actuated by no other feeling than
a love of country and a thirst for glory. The character he exhibited
when surrounded by dangers, ought to have procured him the confidence
and the affection of the people; but the turbulent and seditious
spirit of the Greeks, and the vanity of their disputes would not
permit them to appreciate true greatness. They reproached Palæologus
with misfortunes which were not his work, and which his virtue alone
could have repaired. They accused him of completing the ruin of an
empire which all the world abandoned, and which he alone was willing
to defend. They not only no longer respected the authority or the
intentions of the prince; but every one who was exalted either by
rank or character, became an object of reprobation or mistrust. By a
consequence of that restless spirit which, in public disorders, urges
the multitude to seek obscure supports, certain predictions, fully
credited by the people, announced that the city of the Cæsars could
only be saved by a miserable mendicant, in whose hand God would place
the sword of his wrath.

As the day of their great calamities approached, the congregations of
the churches proportionately increased. The image of the holy Virgin,
the patroness of Constantinople, was solemnly exhibited, and carried
in procession through the streets. These pious ceremonies, doubtless,
presented something edifying, but they did not inspire the bravery
necessary for the defence of a country and a religion in extreme
danger; and Heaven, amidst the perils of war, did not listen to the
prayers of an unarmed trembling people.

During the siege, capitulation had been several times spoken of.
Mahomet required that the capital of an empire, of which he already
possessed all the provinces, should be given up to him, and he
would permit the Greeks to retire with their treasures. Palæologus
was willing to consent to pay a tribute, but he would not give up
Constantinople. At length, in a last message, the sultan threatened
to immolate the Greek emperor with his family, and scatter his
captive people throughout the earth, if he persisted in defending the
city. Mahomet offered his enemy a principality in the Peloponnesus;
Constantine rejected this proposition, and preferred a glorious death.
From that moment peace was no more mentioned, and Byzantium was left to
the chances of an implacable war.

The sultan announced to the army an approaching general assault: the
wealth of Constantinople, the captives, the Greek women, were to be the
rewards of the valour of the soldiers; he for himself, only reserved
the city and the edifices. To add religious enthusiasm to that of war,
dervises pervaded the ranks of the Ottoman army, exhorting the soldiers
to purify their bodies by ablutions, and their souls by prayer; and
promising the delights of paradise to the defenders of the Mussulman
faith. At the end of the day, great fires, lighted by the orders of
the sultan, spread a lurid splendour over all the shores of the sea,
from the point of Galata to the Golden Gate. The Ottoman emperor then
appeared in the midst of his army, promising again the plunder of
Byzantium to his soldiers; and, to render his promise more solemn,
he swore to it _by the soul of Amurath, by four thousand prophets,
by his children, and lastly by his cimeter_. The whole army burst
forth in exclamations of joy, and repeated several times: _God is
God, and Mahomet is the messenger of God_. When this warlike ceremony
was finished, the sultan ordered, under pain of death, that profound
silence should be observed throughout the camp; and from that moment
nothing was to be heard around Constantinople but the confused tumult
of an army in which everything was in motion, preparing for a terrible
and decisive combat.

In the city, the garrison kept watch upon the ramparts, and observed
with anxiety the movements of the Ottoman army. They had heard with
affright the noisy exclamations of the Turks; but the sudden silence
which followed them redoubled their alarm. The light from the enemy’s
fires was reflected from the summits of the towers and from the domes
of the churches, and rendered the darkness which covered the city
more awful. Constantinople, in which the labours of industry and all
the ordinary cares of life were suspended, was plunged in a profound
calm, which, however, afforded neither sleep nor repose to any one; it
was the dismal aspect of a city which some great scourge has rendered
desolate. Only around the temples some few plaintive sounds were heard,
imploring with the voice of prayer the mercy of heaven. Already might
the words of the Persian poet be applied to that unfortunate city,
which the conqueror repeated on the morrow in the pride of his triumph:
_The spider silently spins his web beneath the roofs of the palaces,
and the bird of darkness utters his mournful cries upon the towers of
Efrasiab_.

Constantine called together the principal leaders of the garrison to
deliberate upon the dangers which threatened the empire. In a pathetic
discourse, he endeavoured to revive the courage and the hopes of his
companions in arms; speaking to the Greeks of patriotism, and to the
Latin auxiliaries of religion and humanity, he exhorted them all to
have patience, but above all to preserve concord. The warriors who were
present at this last council, listened to the emperor in melancholy
silence; they did not dare to interrogate each other upon the means of
defence, which all knew to be useless. They embraced each other with
tears, and returned to the ramparts, filled with the most sinister
forebodings.

The emperor entered the church of St. Sophia, where he received the
sacrament of the communion; the sadness which was observable on his
countenance, the pious humility with which he solicited forgetfulness
of injuries, pardon for his faults, the touching words which he
addressed to the people, which resembled eternal adieus, redoubled the
general consternation. The sun of the last day of the Roman empire
arose: it was the 29th of May; the signal for assault was given to the
Turkish army before dawn: the multitude of Mussulman soldiers rushed
towards the walls of the city. The attack was made at the same time
on the side of the port, and near the gate of St. Romanus. In the
first charge, the assailants everywhere met with a firm resistance;
the Catalans and the Genoese did all that the courage of Franks could
effect. Palæologus fought at the head of the Greeks, and the sight
alone of the imperial banner filled the Ottoman soldiers with terror.
Three hundred archers from the isle of Crete, sustained gloriously
the ancient renown of the Cretans for their skill with the bow. Among
this brave band it is but just to point out Cardinal Isidorus, who had
caused the fortifications he was charged to protect to be repaired at
his own expense, and who fought till the end of the siege, at the head
of the soldiers he had brought from Italy. History likewise owes great
praise to the monks of St. Basil, who had no doubt adopted the party of
the union, and whose valour and glorious death expiated the blind and
fatal obstinacy of the Byzantine clergy.

The historian Phrantza compares the close ranks of the Mussulmans to an
extended tightened cord, which might have been placed round the city.
The towers which defended the gate St. Romanus crumbled away beneath
the blows of the rams and the discharges of the Ottoman artillery. The
exterior walls were carried; the dead and the founded, confounded with
the ruins, filled up the ditches. And yet upon this horrible field of
battle the defenders of Byzantium fought still; nothing could weary
their constancy nothing could shake their courage.

After two hours of frightful conflict, Mahomet advanced with his
chosen troops and ten thousand janissaries. He appeared in the midst
of them, with his mace in his hand, like the angel of destruction; his
threatening looks animated the ardour of his soldiers, and he pointed
out to them by his gestures the points that were to be attacked. Behind
the battalions he led, a troop of those men whom despotism charges with
the execution of its vengeance, punished or constrained all who wished
to fly, and forced them forward to the carnage. The dust which arose
from the steps of the combatants, with the smoke of the artillery,
covered both the army and the city. The clang of the trumpets, the
crash of the ruins, the explosion of the cannons, and the shock of arms
completely drowned the voices of the leaders. The janissaries fought
in disorder; and Constantine, who had remarked it, was exhorting his
soldiers to make one last effort, when the aspect of the fight became
all at once changed. Justinian having been struck by an arrow, the
pain of the wound was so intense as to force him to quit the field of
battle. The Genoese and most of the Latin auxiliaries followed his
example. The Greeks, left alone, are soon overwhelmed by numbers; the
Turks pass the ramparts, get possession of the towers, and break open
the gates. Constantine fought still; but soon, covered with wounds, he
fell among the heap of dead, and Constantinople was without a head and
without defenders.

What a spectacle is that of an empire which has but one moment of
existence left, and which is about to finish amidst the furies of war,
and beneath the sword of barbarians! All at once every tie of society
is broken; religion, patriotism, nature have no longer laws that can
be invoked; even wisdom and experience can yield none but useless
counsels. All the ascendancy and splendour of virtue, genius, or even
valour, have no longer power to distinguish or protect the citizens.
Those magnificent palaces which constituted the pride of princes,
nobody possesses them now. Among all the numerous edifices of a great
capital, no one can find an asylum or an abode. The city has no longer
warriors or magistrates, nobles or plebeians, poor or rich; the whole
population is but a troop of slaves, who await with terror the presence
of an irritated master. Such was Constantinople at the moment the
conquerors were preparing to enter it.

When some of those who had defended the ramparts retreated into the
city, announcing the coming of the Turks, they could not obtain belief;
when the Turkish battalions came pouring in, the people, says the
Greek historian Ducas, “were half dead with fear, and could scarcely
breathe.” The multitude rushed about the streets, without knowing
whither to go, and uttering piercing cries. Women, children, and old
people flocked to the churches, as if the altars of Christ could prove
an asylum against the savage disciples of Mahomet!

It is not our task to describe the disasters which followed the taking
of Constantinople. The massacre of the unarmed inhabitants, the
city given up to pillage, holy places profaned, virgins and matrons
overwhelmed with outrages, an entire population loaded with chains;
such are the horrible pictures that are to be found in the annals of
the Turks, the Greeks, and the Latins. Such was the fate of that city
which frequent revolutions had covered with ruins, and which became at
length the ridicule and the prey of a nation it had long despised. If
there be anything consolatory amidst so many distressing scenes, it is
the virtue of Constantine,[71] who would not survive his country, and
whose death was the last glory of the empire of the East.[72]

When we consider the weakness of the Greek empire and the power of
its enemies, we are astonished it was able to resist so long. The
Ottomans were governed by all the passions which favour conquests; the
Greeks had not one of the qualities which are useful in defence: to be
convinced of this, we have but to see how the two nations acted. When
Mahomet proclaimed his enterprise, the Ottomans flocked to his army
from all parts of his empire; whilst at the first report of the siege,
a great part of the population of Constantinople deserted the city. We
have seen that the dervises encouraged the Mussulman soldiers, and held
up to them the war against the Greeks as a holy war. The Greek priests,
on the contrary, discouraged the defenders of Byzantium, and were not
far from considering the resistance of Constantine as a sacrilegious
action. During the assaults made upon the imperial city, the Turkish
soldiers, to fill up the ditches, cast into them their tents and their
baggage, preferring victory to all they possessed. It is well known
that at the same time the richest Greeks were employed in burying
their wealth, preferring treasures to patriotism. We could add other
remarkable features, but these quite sufficiently show on which side
the strength was. What most strongly foretold the ruin of Byzantium,
was the small degree of confidence the Greeks had in the duration of
their empire. Never did the ancient Romans more clearly show the power
and ascendancy of their patriotism, than when they designated Rome,
the _eternal city_. Constantinople saw the number of its defenders
diminish, and their courage became weaker, in proportion with the
facility with which the sinister predictions of its approaching ruin
found credit among the people.

When Byzantium, at the beginning of the thirteenth century, fell into
the hands of the Latins, the empire still possessed great means of
defence, and yet twenty thousand Crusaders achieved the conquest of it;
which places the valour of the Franks much above that of the Turks.
This would perhaps be the best place to examine what was the influence
of the crusades over the destiny of the empire of the East. In the
first expedition of the Latins, Asia Minor was delivered from the
Turks, who were already masters of Nice, and threatened Constantinople;
but the Crusaders sold the services they had rendered at too high a
price: on the one part, violence, on the other, perfidy, disturbed the
harmony that ought to have subsisted between the Greeks and the Latins.
At length the taking of Constantinople by the Franks was a mortal blow
to the empire of Byzantium. Amidst the war, schism became enlarged by
hatred; and schism, in its turn, doubled the reciprocal hatred. This
division favoured the progress of the Turks, and opened the gates of
Constantinople to them.

What is most unfortunate in the conquest of the Ottomans is, that they
preserved nothing, not even the name of Byzantium. The barbarians who
overthrew the empire of the West, adopted the religion and manners
of the conquered nations; which, by degrees, caused the traces of
invasion and conquest to disappear. The Turks, on the contrary, were
resolved to make the Koran triumph wherever they carried their arms.
As soon as they were masters of Constantinople, the altars of Christ
were overturned, and everything changed with religion. The city of
Constantine became more widely than ever separated from Christendom;
and as it was for the infidels the gate of the West, Christian Europe,
which during nearly three centuries had sent its fleets and its armies
into Asia, had reason at last to tremble for itself. From that period
crusades took a new character, and were nothing but defensive wars.

BOOK XVII.

CRUSADES AGAINST THE TURKS.

A.D. 1453-1481.

THE West had heard of the dangers which threatened the Greek empire
with indifference; but on learning the last triumph of the arms of
Mahomet, all the Christian nations were seized with terror; and it was
believed that the janissaries were already overturning the altars of
the Gospel in the richest provinces of Germany. People trembled at the
idea of one day hearing the Koran preached in the churches of Rome,
changed into mosques. Murmurs arose on all sides against the Pope,
Nicholas V., who was reproached with not having preached a crusade, to
prevent the misfortune which all Christendom deplored. Assistance sent
before the siege might, in fact, have saved Constantinople; but the
city once in the power of the barbarians, the evil became irreparable.
A union of all the Christian powers alone could wrest their conquests
from the hands of the Turks, and against this union fresh obstacles
arose daily.

In vain, to excite the West once more, the eloquence of Christian
orators was addressed sometimes to the grief, and at others to the
piety, of the faithful; in vain, by turns, the ascendancy of religious
ideas and that of chivalry were employed: everybody deplored the
progress of the Turks, but a blind resignation, or rather a cruel
indifference, soon took place of the general consternation.

A short time after the taking of Constantinople, Philip the Good, duke
of Burgundy, assembled at Lille, in Flanders, all the nobility of his
states; and in a festival of which history has preserved a faithful
account, he endeavoured to awaken the zeal and valour of the knights,
by the spectacle of everything that could at that period affect their
chivalric imagination. In the first place, a great number of pictures
and curious scenes were exhibited to the spectators, among which were
the labours of Hercules, the adventures of Jason and Medea, and the
enchantments of Melusina.[73] After these, an elephant was led into the
banquetting-hall by a Saracen giant; on the back of the elephant was a
tower, from which issued a lady clothed in mourning, representing the
Christian Church. The elephant having arrived in front of the table
of the duke of Burgundy, the lady recited a long complaint, in verse,
upon the evils with which she was afflicted; and addressing herself to
the princes, dukes, and knights, she complained of their tardiness and
their indifference in assisting her. Then appeared a herald-at-arms,
who carried in his hand a pheasant, a bird which chivalry had adopted
as the symbol and the prize of bravery. Two noble demoiselles, and
several knights of the order of the Golden Fleece, approached the duke,
and presented to him the bird of the brave, praying him to _hold them
in remembrance_. Philip the Good, who knew, says Oliver de la Marche,
with what intention he held this banquet, cast a look of compassion
upon the Lady Holy Church,[74] and drew from his bosom a writing, which
the herald-at-arms read with a loud voice. In this writing, the duke
vowed _in the first place by God his Creator, and by the holy Virgin,
and next by the ladies and the pheasant_, “that if it pleased the king
of France to expose his body for the defence of the Christian faith,
to resist the damnable enterprize of the Grand Turk, he would serve
him with his person and his power in the said voyage, in the best
manner that God would give him grace; if the said king committed this
expedition to any prince of his blood, or other great lord, he swore to
obey him; and if, on account of his great affairs, he was nut disposed
to go or to send, and other potent princes would take the cross, he
offered to accompany them as soon as he possibly could. If, during the
holy voyage, he could by any means or manner learn or know that the
said Grand Turk would be willing to meet him body to body, he, Philip,
for the sake of the said Christian faith, would willingly fight with
him, with the help of the all-powerful God, and of his very sweet
Virgin Mother, whom he always called upon to aid him.”

The Lady Holy Church thanked the duke for the zeal he showed for her
defence. All the lords and knights who were present, invoked, in their
turns, the names of God and the Virgin, without forgetting the ladies
and the pheasant, and swore to consecrate their wealth and their lives
to the service of Jesus Christ, _and of their very redoubtable lord
the duke of Burgundy_. All expressed the most ardent enthusiasm. Some
distinguished themselves by the whimsicality and the singularity of
their promises. The count d’Etampes, nephew to Philip the Good, engaged
himself to offer a _challenge to any of the great princes and lords
of the Grand Turk’s company_, and promised to fight them _body to
body, two to two, three to three, four to four, five to five, &c._ The
bastard of Burgundy swore to fight with a Turk in any manner he might
please, and engaged to have his challenge sent to _the hostel of the
Turk_. The lord of Pons swore never to sojourn in any city till he had
met with a Saracen with whom he might fight body to body, by the help
of our Lady, for the love of whom _he would never sleep in a bed on a
Saturday_, before the entire accomplishment of his vow.

Another knight undertook, from the day of his departure, never to eat
anything on a Friday that had been killed, until he had exchanged blows
with one or many enemies of the faith; if the banner of his lord and
that of the Saracens were unfurled as the signal for fight, he made
a vow to go straight to the banner of the Grand Turk, and _to strike
it to the earth, or die in attempting to do so_.[75] The seigneur de
Toulongeon, on his arrival in the country of the infidels, vowed to
challenge one of the men-at-arms of the Grand Turk, and fight him in
the presence of his lord, the duke of Burgundy; or if the Saracen were
not willing to come, he proposed to go and fight him in the presence of
the Grand Turk, _provided he might have good assurance of safety_.

All these promises, which were never accomplished, serve at least to
show us the spirit and the manners of chivalry. The simple confidence
which the knights had in their arms, proves how little they were
acquainted with the enemies against whom they declared war in this
fashion.[76]

When each one had pronounced his vows, a lady clothed in white, bearing
upon her back this inscription in letters of gold,—_Grace-Dieu_, came
and saluted the assembly, and presented twelve ladies with twelve
knights. These ladies personated twelve virtues or qualities, the name
of which each wore upon her shoulder:—Faith, Charity, Justice, Reason,
Prudence, Temperance, Strength, Truth, Bounty (largesse), Diligence,
Hope, Valour,—such were the chivalric virtues that were to preside
over the crusade.

After this ceremony, says the chronicler we have quoted, the ladies
_began to dance like mummers, and to give themselves up to gaiety, in
order to carry on the festival more joyously_.

The details of this chivalric feast make us perceive a great change
in the spirit and the manners of Europe. When we call to our minds
the Council of Clermont, the preachings of Peter the Hermit and of
St. Bernard, with the grave enthusiasm and the austere devotion which
presided at the taking of the oaths of the early Crusaders; and when
we afterwards behold the brilliant solemnities of chivalry, the
half-profane and half-religious promises of the knights, in short, all
the worldly spectacles amidst which a holy war was proclaimed, we can
fancy ourselves transported not only into another age, but amongst new
nations. The religion which had precipitated the West upon Asia had no
longer an empire, unless the ladies were its interpreters. It was less
piety, or the desire of obtaining heavenly crowns, than the sentiment
of gallantry with which they were animated in tournaments, that brought
knights beneath the standard of the cross.

We likewise know that this kind of preaching produced only a transient
effect upon the minds of the warriors; and that they had not any
influence whatever upon the multitude. This observation must convince
us of one truth, which is, that the most active and powerful motive
among men will always be the spirit of religion, and that no other
motive, emanating from human passions, could have excited the world
like that which produced and kept up the crusades.

Some pious men, however, made incredible efforts to revive the spirit
of the early times of the holy wars. John Capistran, a monk of St.
Francis, and Æneas Sylvius, bishop of Sienna, neglected no means that
they thought would inflame the minds of the people, and reanimate
religious enthusiasm. The first, who passed for a saint, travelled
through the cities of Germany and Hungary, describing to the assemblies
of the people, the perils of the faith, and the threats of the wicked.
The second, one of the most enlightened bishops of his age, versed in
Greek and Latin literature, an orator and a poet, exhorted princes to
take up arms to keep off invasion from their own states, and save the
Christian republic from approaching destruction.

Æneas Sylvius wrote to the sovereign pontiff, and endeavoured to rouse
his zeal by telling him, that the loss of Constantinople would weaken
his credit and tarnish his name, if he did not use every effort to
destroy the power of the Turks. The pious orator repaired to Rome, and
preached the crusade in a consistory; and to show the necessity for
a holy war, he quoted by turns, before the pope and cardinals, the
authority of Greek philosophers, and that of fathers of the Church. He
deplored the captivity of Jerusalem, the cradle of Christianity; and
the slavery of Greece, the mother of the sciences and the arts. Æneas
celebrated the heroic courage of the Germans, the noble devotion of
the French, the generous pride of the Spaniards, and the love of glory
which animated the nations of Italy. The king of Hungary, whose kingdom
was threatened by Mahomet, was present at this assembly. The orator of
the crusade, pointing out this monarch to the sovereign pontiff and the
prelates, conjured them to have pity on his tears.

Frederick III., emperor of Germany, at the same time wrote to Pope
Nicholas V., to implore him to save Christendom. “The words that issue
from the mouth of man cannot give an idea of the calamity the Catholic
Church has just experienced, or make known the ferocity of the people
who are now desolating Greece, and who menace the West.” The emperor
pressed the pope to unite all the Christian powers against this
formidable enemy; announcing that he himself was about to convoke the
princes and states of Germany. The pope applauded the intentions of the
emperor, and legates were sent to the diets of Ratisbon and Frankfort.
Æneas Sylvius again preached the crusade against the Turks in these two
assemblies. The duke of Burgundy, who was present at both, renewed, in
the presence of the princes and states of the German empire, the vow
he had made _to God, to the Blessed Virgin, to the ladies, and to the
pheasant_. Hungarian deputies came to announce that the banks of the
Danube and the frontiers of Germany were about to be invaded by the
Turks, if Christians did not hasten, in all parts, to take up arms to
repel them.

The diet decreed that ten thousand horse and thirty thousand foot
should be sent against the Turks; but as nothing was decided as to the
manner of levying this army, or as to how it should be maintained,
the enthusiasm for the crusade soon declined, and nobody put himself
forward to oppose the progress of the Ottomans. Æneas Sylvius explains
to us, in one of his letters, the causes of this indifference and
inaction of Christendom. “The Christian republic was nothing but a
body without a head; they who ought to have been the leaders had
nothing great about them but the name; Europe was divided into a crowd
of inimical or rival states; discords that could not be appeased,
diversity of interests, languages, and customs, left no hope of raising
a common army, or of carrying on an active and regular war against the
Turks.”

Æneas Sylvius thus demonstrated the impossibility of a crusade, and
yet, carried away by his zeal, he passed his whole life in preaching
one. Whilst he was uselessly haranguing the princes of Germany, the
pope was endeavouring to establish concord among the states of Italy.
The ascendancy of the pontifical authority was not sufficient to calm
angry spirits, and peace was the work of a poor hermit, whose words
exercised a supreme authority over the hearts of the faithful. Brother
Simon issued all at once from his retreat, perambulated the cities,
and addressing both princes and people, exhorted them to unite against
the enemies of Jesus Christ: at the voice of the holy orator, Venice,
Florence, and the duke of Milan, laid down their arms, and a league was
formed, into which most of the republics and principalities of Italy
entered.

Advantage might have been taken of this union to declare war against
the Turks. But the confederation had no leader capable of directing it.
Two men were able to set both Germany and Italy in motion,—the Emperor
Frederick and Pope Nicholas. They alone could have insured success
to a crusade which they themselves had preached: but the one was
restrained by the avarice and indolence of his character; the other,
passionate in the pursuit of learned antiquity, always surrounded
by scholars, employed himself much more earnestly in collecting the
literary treasures of Greece and Rome, than in promoting attempts
for the deliverance of the city of Constantine. When the Turks took
Byzantium, he was causing translation to be made, at great expense, of
the most celebrated Greek authors; and it would not be harsh to believe
that the tenths levied for the crusade, were sometimes employed in the
acquisition of the masterpieces of Plato, Herodotus, or Thucydides.

Nicholas confined himself to a few exhortations addressed to the
faithful, and died without having removed any of the difficulties which
opposed themselves to the undertaking of a holy war. Calixtus III.,
who succeeded him, showed more zeal, and at the very commencement of
his pontificate, he sent legates and preachers throughout Europe,
to proclaim a crusade and levy tenths. An embassy from the pontiff
went to solicit the kings of Persia and Armenia, and the khan of
the Tartars, to unite with the Christians of the West, to make war
against the Turks. Sixteen galleys, constructed with the produce of
the tenths, put to sea under the command of the patriarch of Aquileia,
and displayed the banner of St. Peter in the Archipelago, and on
the coasts of Asia Minor; Æneas Sylvius harangued the pope in the
name of the emperor of Germany, and promised him the concurrence of
all the powers of Christendom, if his holiness opened the treasures
of the Church, and, by his evangelical exhortations, called _all the
workmen to the harvest_. Calixtus III. thanked the head of the empire
for his advice, and pressed him to set the example. But the indolent
Frederick contented himself with renewing his promises; and whilst the
emperor was thus exhorting the pope to maintain a crusade, and that the
pope, on his side, was urging the emperor to take arms, the Ottomans
penetrated into Hungary, and advanced against Belgrade.

This city, one of the bulwarks of the West, received no succour
from Christendom. There remained no hope for it but in the valour
of Hunniades, and in the apostolic zeal of John of Capistran. The
one commanded the troops of the Hungarians, and excited them by his
example; the other, who, by his preachings had got together a great
number of German Crusaders, animated the Christian soldiers, and
inspired them with an invincible ardour.

Contemporary chronicles inform us, that at this period a hairy comet
appeared blazing in the east. The Christian nations believed they saw
in this phenomenon a prophetic signal of the greatest evils; and as the
evil then most to be dreaded was the invasion of the Turks, Calixtus
was desirous of profiting by this feeling of the people, to revive the
idea of a crusade. He exhorted the Christians to penitence; and pointed
out the holy war as a means by which they might expiate their sins and
appease the anger of Heaven.

In no country, notwithstanding, did the people arm, except in those
that were immediately menaced by the Turks. It was at this time that
the pope ordered that every day at noon, the bells should be rung in
all parishes, to call upon the faithful to pray for the Hungarians,
and for those who were contending with the Turks. Calixtus granted
indulgences to all Christians who, at this signal, would repeat the
Dominical prayer and the angelic salutation three times. Such was
the origin of the _Angelus_, which the customs of the Church have
consecrated, and continued to modern times.

Heaven was doubtless touched by these fervent prayers, which arose
at the same time and together, from all parts of Christian Europe.
On the 6th of August, 1456, the Turks were defeated under the walls
of Belgrade, which they had besieged forty days, and which they
had threatened to treat in the same manner as they had treated the
Greek capital. The presence of Hunniades and the ardent zeal of John
Capistran had so excited the valour of the Hungarians, that they
destroyed the Ottoman fleet, which covered the Danube and the Save,
and the army commanded by Mahomet himself. More than twenty thousand
Mussulmans lost their lives in the battle; the sultan was wounded
amidst his janissaries, and escaped the pursuit of the victors with
much difficulty. All Europe returned Heaven thanks for a victory, for
the obtaining of which it had only concurred by its prayers, and which
it must have considered a miracle. The tent and the arms of Mahomet
were sent to the pope, as a trophy of the holy war, and as a homage
rendered to the father of the faithful. Religion celebrated by its
ceremonies, a day in which its most cruel enemies had been vanquished.
The festival of the Transfiguration, instituted by a bull of the pope,
and marked to take place on the 6th of August, reminded the universal
Church, every year, of the defeat of the Turks before Belgrade.

Hunniades and Capistran did not long survive their triumphs; but both
died whilst Christendom was still mixing their names with hymns of
gratitude. The passion of jealousy empoisoned their last moments; and
the scarcely evangelical warmth with which each of them claimed the
honour of having saved Belgrade, left a stain upon their renown. Æneas
Sylvius, when commending their memory to the esteem of posterity,
celebrates the virtues of Capistran, and expresses astonishment that
an humble cenobite, who had trampled under-foot all the riches of this
world, should not have had sufficient strength to resist the charms of
glory.

Whilst the Hungarians were beating the Turks before Belgrade, the
pope’s fleet gained some advantages in the Archipelago. Calixtus took
care not to neglect to remind the faithful of the exploits and triumphs
of the patriarch of Aquileia; persuaded that the news of victories
gained over the Mussulmans would restore hope and courage to all those
whom the reverses of the Christians had discouraged and terrified. A
fresh crusade was preached in France, England, Germany, and even in
the kingdoms of Castile, Arragon, and Portugal. The people everywhere
listened with pious seriousness to the preachers of the crusade; but
murmurs generally arose against the levying of the tenths. The clergy
of Rouen, with the university and parliament of Paris, opposed the
impost openly. In Germany complaints were more violent than elsewhere.
In proportion as the spirit of the holy wars cooled, the means
employed by the popes to renew these distant expeditions were judged
with greater severity. It must likewise be admitted, that there were
great abuses in the collection and the employment of the tenths. An
open traffic of the indulgences of the court of Rome for the crusade
was carried on, and the tribunal of penitence, on certain occasions,
seemed to be nothing but a means of levying taxes upon the faithful.
It was only by money that the favours of the Church and the mercies of
Heaven could be obtained; the sins of Christians might be said, in some
sort, to have a tariff; and we find in the history of Arragon, that
disobedience to the decrees of the pope even had become the source of
a new tribute. It may be remembered that the sovereign pontiffs had
frequently forbidden Christians to convey munitions or arms to the
infidels. The trade of the maritime cities often braved the menaces of
the Holy See, and avarice led the merchants to transgress the severest
orders on this point. A sum of money was then required, in the name of
the pope, of all who were accused of this offence. They were condemned
to pay the fourth or the fifth of the profits arising from their
illicit commerce. Commissaries were appointed to levy this impost, and
decrees regulated the collection of it, as in that of all other public
revenues.

But that which most completely exposes the spirit of this age, and
particularly that of the court of Rome, is, that in the preachings of
the crusades, the faithful were much less earnestly exhorted to take
arms than to pay a tribute in money. The levies raised in the name of
the Holy See, were termed _succours for the Hungarians_; and as the
Hungarians always stood in need of being succoured, the levying of the
tenths became a permanent state of things, which the people and the
clergy endured every day with less patience and resignation.

We ought likewise to add, that the Holy See did not always receive the
produce of the tribute it imposed upon the Christians. Princes, under
pretence of making war against the Turks, sometimes took possession of
it; and the tenths destined for the holy war were too often employed in
carrying out the quarrels of ambition.

At length the complaints of the Germans against the commissaries and
agents of the court of Rome became so serious and so numerous, that the
pope found himself obliged to reply to them. In his apology, drawn up
by Æneas Sylvius, he declared that Scanderberg and the king of Hungary
had received numerous succours; that fleets had been armed against
the infidels, and that vessels and munitions of war had been sent to
Rhodes, Cyprus, and Mytilene; that, in a word, the money levied for the
defence of the faith and of Christendom upon the faithful, had never
been otherwise employed. The apologist of the pope, after having thus
justified him, felicitated him with having saved Europe.

This apology, which explains nothing, and which finishes with an
eulogy, too strongly resembles that of the ancient Roman, who, upon
being accused of having embezzled the public money, as his only reply,
proposed that they should go to the Capitol, and give thanks to the
gods for the victories he had gained over the enemies of the republic.
It must, however, be admitted, that that which Æneas Sylvius said was
not totally void of truth; and history can but applaud the zeal which
the sovereign pontiff displayed, in order to arrest the progress of
Mahomet, and save a crowd of victims from the tyranny of the Ottomans.

Calixtus never ceased soliciting the Christian princes to unite with
him, and was particularly anxious to kindle the warlike enthusiasm of
the French against the Turks. “If I were but seconded by the French,”
said he, “we would destroy the race of the infidels.” He spared neither
prayers nor promises to induce Charles VII. to succour Hungary, and
defend the barriers of Europe. He sent him that golden rose which
the popes were accustomed to bless on the fourth Sunday of Lent, and
of which they made a present to Christian princes, as a particular
mark of esteem and affection. These caresses and these civilities of
the pontiff were a great change from the times in which the heads of
the Church only spoke to monarchs in the name of irritated Heaven;
and only exhorted them to take the cross whilst reproaching them with
their sins, and recommending them to expiate them by the holy war. The
popes, when preaching the crusades, were no longer the interpreters of
dominant opinions; their wishes were no longer laws, and princes made
ample use of the faculty they possessed of not obeying. Charles VII.,
who was in constant dread of the enterprises of the English, resisted
the reiterated entreaties of Calixtus. It was in vain that the dauphin,
who afterwards reigned under the title of Louis XI., and was then
living at the court of Burgundy, openly declared himself favourable to
the crusade, and wished to create a party for himself in the kingdom,
by taking the cross; France remained uninterested in the war preached
against the infidels, and Charles contented himself with permitting the
levy of the tenths in his states, upon the express condition that he
should superintend the employment of them.

Whilst the pope was imploring the assistance of Christendom for the
Hungarians, Hungary was a prey to troubles created by the succession
of Ladislaus, who was killed at the battle of Warna. The family of
Hunniades was proscribed, and the ambition of the princes disputed
the possession of the provinces threatened by the Turks. Calixtus
employed the paternal authority of the Holy See to appease the furies
of discord, and to reconcile the pretensions of the emperor of
Germany with the rights of justice and with the rights of nations;
and these generous efforts at length succeeded in reëstablishing
peace. His conduct appeared less praiseworthy, and particularly less
disinterested, when the succession of Alphonso, king of Naples, brought
fresh wars upon Italy. History relates that the sovereign pontiff, on
this occasion, forgot the perils of Christianity, and employed the
treasures collected for the holy war in the defence of a cause which
certainly was not that of religion.

But the indefatigable orator of the crusades, Æneas Sylvius, succeeded
Calixtus III. in the chair of St. Peter. The tiara appeared to be the
reward of his zeal for the war against the Turks, and everything gave
reason for hope that he would neglect nothing to execute himself the
projects he had conceived; and awaken among the nations of Christendom,
that warlike enthusiasm, that religious patriotism, which breathed in
his discourses.

Mahomet II. continued to follow up the course of his victories, and
his power every day became more redoubtable. He was then employed in
despoiling all the Greek princes who had escaped his first invasions,
and whose weakness was concealed under the pompous titles of emperor
of Trebizond, king of Iberia, and despot of the Morea. All these
princes, to whom acts of submission cost nothing, provided they enabled
them to reign a few days longer, had been eager, a short time after
the taking of Constantinople, to send ambassadors to the victorious
sultan, to congratulate him upon his triumphs; and the fierce
conqueror saw nothing in them but a prey which it would be easy for
him to devour,—enemies that he could subdue at leisure. Most of them
dishonoured the last moments of their reign or their existence, by all
that ambition, jealousy, and the spirit of discord could inspire that
was perfidious, cruel, or treacherous. When the Mussulmans penetrated
into the Greek provinces, stained with all the crimes of civil war, it
might have been believed that they were sent to accomplish the menaces
of heavenly anger.

Mahomet did not deign to put forth all his strength against the
pusillanimous tyrants of Greece. Other enemies were worthy of employing
his arms; he had but to speak a word, to pull the throne from under the
prince of Synope or the emperor of Trebizond; and if all that remained
of the family of the Comnenas were massacred by his orders, he, in this
circumstance, was less obedient to the fears of a dark policy than to
his natural ferocity. Seven years after the taking of Byzantium, he
led his janissaries into the Peloponnesus: at his approach, all the
princes of Achaia either took to flight, or became his slaves. Meeting
with scarcely any resistance, he gathered with disdain the fruits of an
easy conquest. He meditated projects more vast than such conquests; and
when he unfurled the banner of the cross amidst the ruins of Sparta and
Athens, he fixed his eyes earnestly upon the Sea of Sicily, and wished
to find a route that might conduct him to the shores of Italy.

The first care of Pius II. was to proclaim the fresh dangers of
Europe. He wrote to all the powers of Christendom, and convoked a
general assembly at Mantua, to deliberate upon the means of arresting
the progress of the Ottomans. The bull of the pontiff reminded the
faithful, that the Church of Christ had often been beaten by the
tempest, but that He who commands the winds was ever watchful over its
safety. “My predecessors,” added he, “have declared war against the
Turks, both by land and by sea; it is for us now to carry it on; we
will spare neither labour nor expense for a war so useful, so just, and
so holy.”

All the states of Christendom promised to send ambassadors to Mantua.
Pius II. went thither himself; and in his opening discourse, he
expatiated with strength against the indifference of princes and
sovereigns. He pointed to the Turks then ravaging Bosnia and Greece,
and ready to extend, like a rapid conflagration, their devastations
over Italy, Germany, and all the countries of Europe. The pontiff
declared he would not quit Mantua before the Christian princes and
states had given him pledges of their devotion to the cause of
Christendom; and at length protested, that if he were abandoned by the
Christian powers, he would alone maintain this glorious struggle, and
would die in defending the independence of Europe and of the Church.

The language of Pius II. was full of religion, and his religion was
full of patriotism. When Demosthenes and the Greek orators mounted
the tribune to press their fellow-citizens to defend the liberties of
Greece against the enterprises of Philip, or the invasions of the great
king, they spoke, without doubt, with more eloquence; but never were
they inspired by greater interests or nobler motives.

Cardinal Bissarion, to whom Greece had given birth, and whom the Church
of Rome had adopted, spoke after Pius II., and declared that the whole
college of cardinals was animated by the same zeal as the father of the
faithful. The deputies of Rhodes, Cyprus, Epirus; those of Illyria,
Peloponnesus, and of several of the countries the Turks had invaded,
made, before the council, a lamentable recital of all the evils the
Christians were suffering under the domination of the Mussulmans; but
the ambassadors of the great powers of Europe were not yet arrived; and
this delay announced but too plainly the indifference of the Christian
monarchs for the crusades. The debates which afterwards arose relative
to the pretensions of the families of Anjou and Arragon to the kingdom
of Naples; and then the disputes upon etiquette and precedence, which
occupied the council during several days, completely proved that the
minds of the assembly were not sufficiently impressed by the dangers of
Christian Europe, and that no generous resolution would be there taken
to prevent them.

The pope proposed to levy for the crusade a tenth upon the revenues of
the clergy, a twentieth upon the Jews, and a thirtieth upon princes and
seculars. He proposed at the same time, to raise an army of a hundred
thousand men in the different states of Europe, and to intrust the
command of this army to the emperor of Germany. These propositions,
in order to be executed, required the approbation of the sovereigns,
and most of the ambassadors made only vague promises. A great number
of conferences were held; the council lasted many months, and the pope
quitted Mantua without having done anything decisive for the enterprise
he meditated. He returned to Rome, whence he wrote again to the
Christian princes, conjuring them to send ambassadors, to deliberate
afresh upon the war against the Turks.

Constantly pursued by the thought of delivering the Christian world,
and losing hope daily of being able to affect the West, he conceived
the strange idea of addressing Mahomet II. himself, and of employing
all the powers of reasoning and eloquence to convert the Mussulman
prince to Christianity. His letter, which we still possess, presents
a complete treatise of the philosophy and the theology of the time.
The pontiff opposes to the apostles of Islamism, the authority of the
prophets and the fathers of the Church, and the profane authority of
Lycurgus and Solon. Aiming particularly at interesting the ambition
of the Ottoman emperor, he proposes to him the example of the great
Constantine, who obtained the empire of the world on receiving baptism,
and investing himself with that sign by which it was given to him
to conquer. The sultan had only to acknowledge the God from whom all
authority comes, to have the Abyssinians, the Arabs, the Mamelukes,
the Persians, with all the nations of Asia, submit to his domination;
and if the intercession of the court of Rome were necessary for him to
reign over the East, the head of the Church promised him the assistance
of his prayers, and the support of the pontifical sovereignty.

In this singular negotiation with Mahomet II., the pope was not more
fortunate than with the Christian princes. The latter, when he urged
them to defend their own states, answered by vain protestations.
Mahomet, to whom he offered the conquest of the world, contented
himself with replying, that “he was innocent of the death of Jesus
Christ, and that he thought with horror of those who had fastened him
to the cross.”

The Ottoman emperor had just obtained possession of Bosnia, and had
caused the king of that unfortunate country, who had submitted to
his arms, to perish in the midst of tortures. Ottoman troops ravaged
the frontiers of Illyria, and threatened the city of Ragusa. The
dangers of Italy became every day more pressing. The pope assembled
his consistory, and represented to the members, that the time was
come to stop the progress of the Turks, and to commence the holy war
he had preached. “The duke of Burgundy and the Venetian republic were
ready to second his enterprise. Whilst the Hungarians and the Poles
were preparing to fight the Ottomans on the Dniester and the Danube,
the Epeirots and the Albanians were about to raise the standard of
liberty among the Greeks: in Asia, the sultan of Caramania and the
king of Persia would attack the Turks, and second the united efforts
of the Christians. The pontiff declared that he was resolved to march
himself against the infidels. When the Christian princes should behold
the vicar of Jesus Christ setting out for the holy war, would they
not be ashamed to remain inactive? Loaded with years and infirmities,
he had but a few moments to live; it would be hastening to an almost
certain death; but of what consequence was the hour or the place of his
decease, provided he died for the cause of Christ, and for the safety
of Christendom.”

The cardinals gave a unanimous assent to the resolution of Pius II.
From that time the pope employed himself in preparations for his
departure, and addressed an exhortation to the faithful to engage them
to second his designs. After having, in this apostolic exhortation,
retraced, with lively eloquence, the misfortunes and the perils of the
Christian Church, the pontiff expressed himself thus:—

“Our fathers lost Jerusalem and all Asia; we have lost Greece and a
great part of Europe. Christendom is now nothing but a corner of the
world. In this extreme peril, the common father of the faithful is
himself going to meet the enemy. Doubtless, war is ill suited to the
weakness of old age, or to the character of pontiff; but when religion
is ready to succumb, who could restrain us? We will take our place
during fight, either upon the poop of a vessel, or upon a lofty hill,
pouring our benedictions upon the soldiers of Christ, and invoking
for them the God of armies. Thus the patriarch Moses prayed upon the
mountain, and raised his hands towards heaven, whilst Israel combated
with the nations whom God had reproved. We shall be followed by our
cardinals, and by a great number of bishops; we will march with the
standard of the cross displayed, with the relics of saints, with Jesus
Christ himself in his eucharist. What Christian will refuse to follow
the vicar of God, going with his holy senate, and all the revered train
of the Church, to the defence of religion and humanity?

“What war was ever more just or more necessary? The Turks attack all
that we hold most dear, all that Christian society considers most holy.
If you are men, can you be wanting in compassion for your fellow-men?
If you are Christians, religion commands you to carry succour to your
brethren. If the misfortunes of others touch you not, think of your
own safety—have pity on yourselves. You imagine yourselves to be in
safety, because you are as yet at a distance from peril: to-morrow the
sword will be suspended over your heads. If you convey not assistance
to those who are before you, those who are behind you will, in like
manner, abandon you in the hour of danger.

“Do you feel yourselves strong enough to support the opprobrium and the
humiliation of a barbarous domination? Remain in your dwellings, await
your enemies there; await there those vile Asiatics, who are not even
men, and yet have the insolent pretension to govern all the nations of
Europe. But if you possess a noble heart, an elevated mind, a generous
character, a Christian soul, you will follow the banners of the Church;
you will send us succours; you will aid the army of the Lord.

“Such as will aid us, God will bless them; but such as remain
indifferent shall have no part in the treasures of divine mercy. May
the wicked and the impious, who shall trouble the public peace, be
accursed of God! May Heaven pour upon them the scourges of its wrath!
Let them live in unceasing fear, and may their life be as if suspended
by a thread! Neither power nor riches shall defend them; the arrows
of remorse shall reach them everywhere; the flames of the abyss shall
consume their hearts.”

The pontiff addressed this exhortation to the princes, the nobility,
and the people of all nations. He fixed upon the city and port of
Ancona as the place of meeting for the Crusaders. He promised the
remission of their sins to all who would serve, during six months, at
their own expense, or who would maintain one or two soldiers of the
cross during the same space of time. He had nothing to bestow in this
world upon the faithful who should take part in the crusade; but he
conjured Heaven to direct all their steps, to multiply their days, to
preserve and increase their kingdoms, their principalities, and their
possessions. On terminating his apostolical discourse, he addressed the
Omnipotent God: “Oh thou, who searchest reins and hearts, thou knowest
if we have any other thought than that of combating for thy glory, and
for the safety of the flock thou hast committed to our charge. Avenge
the Christian blood which flows beneath the sword of the Turks, and
which on all sides rises up towards thee. Turn a favourable eye upon
thy people; guide us in the war undertaken for the triumph of thy
faith. Do so, that Greece may be restored to thy worship, and that all
Europe may bless thy name!”

This bull of the pope was sent throughout all the West, and read
publicly in the churches. The assembled faithful shed tears at the
recital of the misfortunes of Christendom. The cross and arms were
taken in countries apparently most secure from the invasions of the
Turks, even in the remotest north of Europe. Some repaired to Ancona;
others directed their course towards Hungary, to join the army of
Matthias Corvinus, ready to set out on its march against the Turks.

The pope wrote to the doge of Venice, to entreat him to assist in
person in the war about to be made against the infidels. He told him
that the presence of princes in armies inspired confidence in the
soldiers and terror in their enemies. As the doge was advanced in
years, Paul reminded him that his own hair was blanched by time,[77]
and that the duke of Burgundy, who promised to accompany the Crusaders
to the East, had attained the days of old age. “We shall be,” added the
holy father, “three old men at the head of an army of Christians. God
takes delight in the number three, and the Trinity which is in heaven,
will not fail to protect this trinity upon earth.”

These singular expressions of the pope belonged to the bad taste of the
age. But in presenting old age as the only mover and the last hope of
the crusade, they painted sufficiently clearly the spirit of the times
with regard to holy wars, and might be believed to presage the little
success of an enterprise, which, in order to succeed, stood in need of
the ardour and activity that are only to be found in youth. The doge of
Venice hesitated to embark; but as the republic was at war with Mahomet
II., and as it was of importance to mix its interests with those of the
crusade, it threatened to employ force, in order to compel the doge
to follow the pontiff of Rome. The duke of Burgundy, who had been the
first of all the Christian princes to swear to go and combat with the
infidels, showed no inclination to join the Crusaders. The pope, in his
letters, reminded him of his solemn promises, and reproached him with
having deceived men,—with having deceived God himself. He added, that
his breach of faith would throw the whole of Christendom into mourning,
and might bring about the entire failure of the enterprise. Philip,
in spite of the severe remonstrances of Pius II., could not make up
his mind to leave his states, but contented himself with sending two
thousand men-at-arms to the Christian army. He was at that time in
dread of the crooked policy of Louis XI., who, when he was dauphin,
was eager to fight the Turks; but having ascended the throne of France,
had no other enemies but his neighbours.

Pius II., after having implored the protection of God, in the
basilic of the holy Apostles, left Rome in the month of June, 1464.
Being attacked by a slow fever, and fearing that the sight of his
infirmities might discourage the soldiers of the cross, he concealed
his sufferings, and desired his physician to be silent on the subject
of his malady. All along his route the people put up prayers for the
success of his enterprise. The city of Ancona received him in triumph,
and saluted him as the liberator of the Christian world.

A great number of Crusaders had arrived in this city; but most of
them were without arms or stores, and were almost naked. The earnest
exhortations of the pope had had no effect upon the knights and barons
of Christendom. The poor, and men of the lowest class of the people,
appeared to have been more struck with the dangers of Europe than the
rich and the great of the earth.[78] The crowd of Crusaders collected
at Ancona resembled a troop of vagabonds and mendicants much more than
an army. Every day, want and disease made martyrs of them. Pius II.
was touched with their misery; but as he could not provide for their
maintenance, he retained such as were in a condition to go to the war
at their own expense, and dismissed the others with the indulgences of
the crusade.

The Christian army was to direct its course to the coasts of Greece,
and join Scanderberg, who had recently beaten the Ottomans in the
plains of Ocrida. Deputies were sent to the Hungarians, the king of
Cyprus, and to all the enemies of the Turks in Asia, without forgetting
the king of Persia, to warn them to hold themselves in readiness to
commence the war against the followers of Mahomet.

The little city of Ancona attracted the attention of all Europe. In
fact, what spectacle could be more interesting than that of the father
of the faithful braving the perils of war and of the seas, to go into
distant countries, for the purposes of avenging outraged humanity,
breaking the chains of Christian captives, and visiting his children
in their affliction? Unfortunately, the physical strength of Pius II.
was not equal to his zeal, and would not permit him to perfect his
sacrifice. The fleet was ready to set sail, when the fever which he had
had on leaving Rome, aggravated by the fatigues of the voyage and his
subsequent anxiety, became a mortal malady. Feeling his end approach,
he called the cardinals around him, and made them swear to prosecute
the war against the infidels. He died whilst commending the Christians
of the East to their care; and the last looks he cast upon earth were
directed towards Greece, then labouring under the oppression of the
enemies of Christ.

Paul II., who was elected pope, promised, amidst the conclave, to
follow the example of his predecessor. But the Crusaders assembled by
Pius II. were already returned to their homes. The Venetians, left
alone, carried the war into the Peloponnesus, without being able to
obtain any great advantages over the Turks. They devastated the country
they went to deliver; and the most remarkable of their trophies was
the pillage of Athens. The Greeks of the canton of Lacedæmon and some
other cities, who, in the hope of being succoured, had raised the
standard of liberty, could not stand against the janissaries, and fell
victims to their devotion to the cause of religion and patriotism.
Scanderberg, whose capital the Turks besieged, came himself to solicit
the assistance of the pope. Being received by Paul II. in presence of
the cardinals, he declared before the sacred college, that there was no
longer in the East any place but Epirus, and in Epirus only his little
army, that still fought for the cause of the Christians. He added, that
if he succumbed, nobody would be left to defend the routes to Italy.
The pope bestowed the greatest praises upon Scanderberg, and made him a
present of a sword which he had blessed. He at the same time wrote to
the princes of Christendom, to persuade them to assist Albania. In a
letter addressed to the duke of Burgundy, Paul II. lamented the fate of
the nations of Greece, driven from their country by the barbarians; he
deplored the exile and the misery of the Greek families coming to seek
refuge in Italy, dying with hunger and in nakedness, crowded together
upon the seashore, holding their hands up to Heaven, and supplicating
their brothers the Christians to succour them or to avenge them. The
head of the Church reminded them of all that his predecessors had
done, and of all he himself had done, to avert such great misfortunes.
He blamed the indifference of both monarchs and nations; and menaced
Europe with the same calamities, if they did not speedily take up
arms against the Turks. The exhortations of the pope remained without
effect; Scanderberg, carrying nothing back with him but some sums of
money which he had obtained from the Holy See, returned to his kingdom,
then ravaged by the Ottomans, and a short time afterwards died at
Lissa, covered with glory, but despairing of the noble cause for which
he had fought all his life.

Such was the ascendancy of one great man, that under his banners the
Greeks, for such a length of time degenerate, recalled the remembrance
of the brightest days of the military glory of their country; the
little province of Albania resisted during twenty years the whole power
of the Ottoman empire. The death of Scanderberg threw his companions
in arms into despair. “Hasten, brave Albanians,” cried they in the
public places, “redouble your courage; for the ramparts of the empire
and of Macedon are now crumbled into dust.” These words were at once
the funeral oration of a hero and that of his people. Two years had
scarcely passed away before most of the cities of Epirus fell into the
power of the Turks; and, as Scanderberg himself had foretold to the
pontiff of Rome, not a soldier of Christ remained east of the Adriatic
Sea.

All enterprises against the infidels were from that time confined to a
few maritime expeditions of the Venetians and the Knights of Rhodes.
These expeditions were not sufficient to arrest the progress of the
Ottomans. Mahomet II. never ceased to meditate an invasion of Germany
and Italy. Resolved to aim one last blow at his enemies, he determined,
after the example of the Roman pontiffs, to employ the ascendancy of
religion, to excite the bravery and the enthusiasm of the Mussulmans.
In the midst of a solemn ceremony, and in the presence of the divan
and the mufti, he swore “to renounce all pleasures, and never to turn
his countenance from the West to the East, until he had overthrown and
trampled under the feet of his horses the gods of the nations,—those
gods of wood, brass, silver, gold, and painting, that the disciples of
Christ made with their hands.” He swore “to exterminate the iniquity of
the Christians from the face of the earth, and to proclaim, from the
rising to the setting, the glory of the God of Sabaoth and of Mahomet.”
After this threatening declaration, the Turkish emperor pressed all the
circumcised nations that followed his laws to join him, in order to
obey the command of God and his prophet.

The oath of Mahomet II. was read in all the mosques of the empire, at
the hour of prayer. The Ottoman warriors flocked to Constantinople
from all parts. An army of the sultan’s was already ravaging Croatia
and Carniola; and soon a formidable fleet issued from the canal, and
attacked the island of Eubœa or Negropont, separated by the Euripus
from the city of Athens, which the Turkish historians call the city
or the country of the philosophers. At the first news of the danger,
the pope ordered public prayers in the city of Rome. He himself walked
barefooted in procession before the image of the Virgin; but Heaven,
says one of the annalists of the Church, did not deign to listen to
the prayers of the Christians; Negropont fell into the hands of the
Turks, and the entire population of the island was either exterminated
or dragged into slavery. A great number of those who had defended their
country with courage expired in tortures. Fame soon carried to Europe
an account of the excesses of Ottoman barbarity, and all Christian
nations were filled with horror and fright.

After the last victories of the Turks, Germany had reason to dread
a prompt invasion, and the coasts of Italy were at the same time
threatened. Cardinal Bessarion addressed an eloquent exhortation to
the Italians, and conjured them to unite against the common enemy. The
pope did everything in his power to appease discord, and at length
succeeded in forming a league among the Italian states, similar to that
which was entered into after the taking of Constantinople. His legates
solicited the assistance of the kings of France and England. Upon his
pressing request, Frederick convoked a diet at Ratisbon, and afterwards
at Nuremberg, in which appeared the deputies of Venice, Sienna,
Naples, Hungary, and Carniola, who described the ravages of the Turks,
and painted in the most striking colours the misfortunes which menaced
Europe. In these two assemblies, several resolutions were formed for
war against the Mussulmans; but not one of them was executed. Such
was the general blindness, that neither the exhortations of the pope,
nor the frightful progress of the Turks, were able to awaken the zeal
of princes or people. The chronicles of the times speak of several
miracles by which God manifested his power in these unfortunate days;
but there can be no doubt that the greatest miracle of Providence was,
that Italy and Germany did not fall into the hands of the Ottomans,
when not a human hand was raised to defend them.

After the death of Paul II., who had not time to achieve his work, and
did not witness the effect of his preachings, his successor, Sextus
IV., neglected nothing for the defence of Christendom. When scarcely
seated on the pontifical throne, he deputed cardinals to several states
of Europe, to preach peace among Christians and war against the Turks.
The legates were specially intrusted to press the levying of the
tenths for the crusade. They were authorized to launch the thunders of
excommunication against those who should oppose this impost, or who
misapplied the produce of it. This severity, which occasioned troubles
in England, and still more in Germany, succeeded in other countries,
and furnished the sovereign pontiff with means for preparing for war.
But none of the princes of the West took up arms, and Christendom was
still exposed to the greatest perils, when fortune sent succour it had
no reason to look for from the depths of Asia.

Of all the powers that had promised to combat the Ottomans, the only
one that did not fail, was the king of Persia, to whom Calixtus III.
had sent a missionary, and who declared himself the faithful ally
of the Christians. In his reply, the king of Persia bestowed the
greatest praises on the pope, encouraged him in his resolution of
attacking Mahomet, and announced to him that he himself would commence
hostilities. At the time his letter was received at Rome, his troops
were already crossing Armenia, and several Ottoman cities had fallen
into the hands of the Persians. Mahomet was obliged to abandon or
to suspend his projects of conquest on the side of Europe, to march
against these new enemies, with the greater part of the strength of his
empire.

Great advantage might have been taken of this powerful diversion of
the Persians. But the Venetians, the king of Naples, and the pope,
alone put themselves forward to make war against the Ottomans. The
sovereign pontiff had caused twenty-four galleys to be built with the
produce of the tenths levied for the crusade. This fleet, commanded by
Cardinal Caraffa, and collected in the Tiber, after having been blessed
by Sextus IV., went to join that of Venice and Naples, and cruised
along the coasts of Ionia and Pamphylia, to the great terror of all
the maritime Ottoman cities. The Venetians did not fail to direct the
operations of the Christian fleet against the cities whose wealth and
commerce gave them any cause for jealousy. Satalia and Smyrna were
given up to the horrors of war; the first of these, situated on the
coast of Pamphylia, was the _entrepôt_ for the productions and the
merchandise of India and Arabia. The second, situated in the Ionian
Sea, possessed rich manufactures and a flourishing trade. The Christian
soldiers committed in these two cities all the kinds of excess with
which the Turks were then reproached. After this piratical expedition,
the fleet regained the ports of Italy, and Cardinal Caraffa returned
triumphant to Rome, followed by twenty-five captives mounted upon
superb horses, and by twelve camels, loaded with the spoils of the
enemy. The ensigns taken from the Mussulmans, and the chain of the port
of Satalia, were solemnly suspended over the gate and in the vaulted
roof of the Vatican.

Whilst these poor advantages over the Mussulmans were being celebrated
at Rome, Mahomet was inflicting terrible blows upon his enemies; and
when he returned to Constantinople, he had destroyed the armies of
the king of Persia. That which gave the Turkish emperor an immense
advantage over the powers which took up arms against him, was that they
never acted in concert, either for defence or attack. Discord was not
long in being revived among the Christian princes, and particularly
among the states of Italy. The pope himself forgot the spirit of peace
and union he had preached; he forgot the holy war; and Venice, left
alone in the struggle against the Ottomans, was obliged to sue to
Mahomet for peace.

The Ottomans took as much advantage of peace as of war to increase
their power. There now remained nothing of the sad wreck of the
Greek empire. Venice had lost all its possessions in the Archipelago
and Greece; Genoa at length lost the rich colony of Caffa, in the
Crimea. Of all the conquests of the Crusaders, the Christians had only
preserved the kingdom of Cyprus and the isle of Rhodes.

During more than a century, the kings of Cyprus had implored the
assistance of the West, and contended with some successes against the
Saracens, particularly the Mamelukes of Egypt. The maritime cities
of Italy protected a kingdom from which trade and navigation derived
great advantage. Every day fresh warriors from Europe afforded it the
support of their arms. A few years after the taking of Constantinople,
history remarks Jacques Cœur, who had obtained the restitution of his
wealth, establishing himself in the isle of Cyprus, and consecrating
his fortune and his life to the defence of the Christians of the
East. After his death, there was to be seen, in a church at Bourges
which he had founded, this inscription:—“The Seigneur Jacques Cœur,
Captain-general of the Church against the infidels.”[79]

The kingdom of Cyprus, after having resisted the Mussulmans for a
long time, became at last the theatre and the prey of revolutions.
Abandoned, in some sort, by the Christian powers, and obliged to defend
itself against the Turks, it placed itself under the protection of
the Mamelukes of Egypt. In time of trouble, the malcontents retired
to Cairo, and procured the protection of a power which had a great
interest in keeping up discord. The family of Lusignan being nearly
extinct, a daughter, the only scion of many kings, at first married
a Portuguese prince, and afterwards Louis, count of Savoy. But the
sultan of Cairo and Mahomet II. would not permit a Latin prince to
wear the crown of Cyprus, and caused a natural son of the last king to
be elected. James, whose illegitimate birth kept him from the throne,
and who had disturbed the kingdom by his ambitious pretensions, was
crowned king of Cyprus in the city of Cairo, under the auspices and
in the presence of the Mamelukes. That which must have greatly added
to the scandal of this coronation was, that the new king promised to
be faithful to the sultan of Egypt, and to pay five thousand gold
crowns for the support of the great mosques of Mecca and Jerusalem. It
was upon the Gospel that he swore to keep this promise, and to omit
nothing that the Mamelukes required. “If I break my word,” added he, “I
shall be an apostate and a forger; I shall deny the existence of Jesus
Christ, and the virginity of his mother; I shall slay a camel upon
the font of baptism, and I shall curse the priesthood.” Such were the
words which a desire of reigning placed in the mouth of a prince who
was about to govern a kingdom founded by the soldiers of Jesus Christ.
He died a short time after having taken possession of the supreme
authority. His people thought the days of his life and his reign were
shortened by divine justice.

The republic of Venice, which adopted Catherine Cornaro, the widow of
James, then took possession of Cyprus, which it defended against the
Mamelukes and against the Turks, and held it till the middle of the
following century.

The eyes of the whole Christian world were fixed upon the isle of
Rhodes. This isle, defended by the Knights of St. John, recalled to the
faithful the remembrance of the Holy Land, and prevented the extinction
of the hope of one day seeing the standard of Christ again floating
over the walls of Jerusalem. The martial youth of all the countries
of the West unceasingly flocked thither, and, in some sort, revived
the ardour, the zeal, and the exploits of the first crusades. The
order of the Hospitallers, faithful to its first institution, always
protected pilgrims repairing to Palestine, and defended Christian
vessels against the attacks of Turks, Mamelukes, and pirates. At the
commencement of his reign, Mahomet II. summoned the grand-master to
pay him a tribute, as to his sovereign. The latter contented himself
with answering: “We only owe the sovereignty of Rhodes to God and our
swords. It is our duty to be the enemies, and not the tributaries,
of the Ottomans!” This reply wounded the pride of the sultan; but he
dissembled his anger, persuaded that victory would soon give that which
was refused, and at the same time avenge him for the noble disdain of
the Knights of St. John.

The Ottoman emperor, after having triumphed over the Persians, returned
to Constantinople with fresh projects for conquests in Europe, and
with increased animosity against the Christians; and the whole of his
empire prepared to minister to his ambition and his anger. If the
Turks had not till that period carried their invasions into the West,
it was because the difference of religion and manners kept them from
all communication with the Christian nations; and because they were
entirely ignorant of the state and dispositions of Christendom, of the
forces that might be opposed to them, and even of the best routes for
them to pursue. They became gradually acquainted with the frontiers of
Europe, and with the sea-coasts; and, like the lion of Holy Writ, which
prowls constantly about in search of its prey, were ever on the watch
for favourable opportunities. They secured advanced posts, and marched
with precaution towards the country they wished to conquer, as an army
draws round a place it is about to besiege. By frequently-repeated
incursions, they spread terror among the nations they intended to
attack; and by the ravages they exercised, they weakened the means
of resistance of their enemies. Mahomet at first made himself master
of Scutari and Negropont, in order to dominate, in a manner, over
the coasts of the Adriatic and the Sea of Naples; on the other side,
several of his armies directed their course towards the Danube, to lay
open the routes to Germany; and Ottoman troops had penetrated, with
fire and sword, as far as Friuli, to terrify the republic of Venice,
and reconnoitre the avenues that lead to Italy.

When everything was ready for the execution of his terrible designs,
the leader of the Ottoman empire resolved to attack Christendom at
several points at once. A numerous army set out on its march to
invade Hungary, and all the countries in the vicinity of the Danube.
Two numerous fleets, with a vast number of troops on board, were
despatched, one against the Knights of Rhodes, whose bravery Mahomet
dreaded; and the other against the coast of Naples, the conquest of
which would open the way towards Rome and southern Italy. In such a
pressing danger, the hopes of the Germans, and even of a portion of
the Italian states, reposed entirely upon the Hungarians. The king of
Hungary was then considered as the guardian of the frontiers of Europe;
and to be always in a condition to meet the Turks, he received every
year succours in money from the republic of Venice and the emperor of
Germany. The pope added to these succours a part of the tenths levied
for the crusade, and his legates and missionaries were always present
to excite the valour of the Hungarian soldiers.

At the approach of the Ottoman army, all Hungary, governed by Matthias
Corvinus, son of Hunniades, flew to arms. The Hungarian army met the
Turks in the plains of Transylvania, and gave them battle. Victory
was obtained by the Christians, who, in a single battle, destroyed
the enemy’s army. Contemporary chronicles take less pains to describe
this terrible conflict, than to exhibit the joy of the conquerors
after their triumph. The entire victorious army assisted at a banquet
prepared upon the field of battle, still covered with dead, and all
smoking with carnage. The leaders and the soldiers mingled their
songs of joy with the cries of the wounded and the dying, and in the
intoxication of victory and festivity performed barbarous dances upon
the bloody carcasses of their enemies.

The war between the Christians and the Turks became every day more
cruel, and presented nothing but scenes of barbarity and destruction.
The menaces of Mahomet; the constant violation by the Turks, in peace
as well as in war, of the rights of nations and the faith of oaths;
many thousands of Christians condemned to die in tortures for having
defended their country and their religion, with twenty years of combats
and misfortunes, had altogether excited the hatred of the soldiers
of the cross; the thirst of vengeance rendered them sometimes as
ferocious as their enemies; and in their triumphs they too frequently
forgot that they were fighting in the cause of the Gospel.

Whilst the Turkish army experienced a sanguinary defeat upon the
Danube, the fleet of Mahomet, which was directed against the isle of
Rhodes, was destined to find, in the Knights of St. John, enemies not
less intrepid or less to be dreaded than the Hungarians. The pacha
who commanded this expedition, belonged to the imperial family of
Palæologus, whose humble prayers had so frequently solicited the aid of
Christian Europe. After the taking of Constantinople, he embraced the
Mussulman religion, and from that time only sought to second Mahomet in
his project of exterminating the race of the Christians in the East.

Several historians have related at great length the events of the siege
of Rhodes; and this is, perhaps, a fitting opportunity to repair a
great injustice committed upon one of the writers who have preceded
us. An expression, escaped from the Abbé de Vertot, and with which
criticism has armed itself, has proved sufficient to deprive him of
the noblest reward of the labours of an historian,—the reputation
for veracity.[80] After having examined with much care the historical
monuments we possess, and according to which the author of the _History
of the Knights of Malta_ has described the siege of Rhodes, we feel
great pleasure in rendering homage to the fidelity of his account,
and we do not hesitate to refer our readers to it. In this elegant
historian will be found the heroic constancy of Aubusson, grand-master
of the order of St. John, and the indefatigable intrepidity of his
knights, defending themselves amidst ruins, against a hundred thousand
Mussulmans, armed with all that the art of sieges and the genius of
war had invented. At the approach of the Turks, the grand-master of
Rhodes implored the arms and aid of the Christian princes; but all the
succours that were sent them consisted of two Neapolitan vessels, which
did not arrive till after the siege was raised, and some sums of money
which were the produce of a jubilee ordered by the pope at the request
of Louis XI.

The third expedition of Mahomet, and the most important for his
projects of conquest, was that which was to have been directed against
the kingdom of Naples. The Ottoman fleet stopped before Otranto. After
a siege of a few days, this city was taken by assault, given up to
pillage, and its population massacred or dragged away into slavery.
This invasion of the Turks, which was quite unexpected, spread terror
throughout Italy. Boufinius informs us that the pope entertained for a
moment the thought of quitting the city of the Apostles, and of going
beyond the Alps, to seek an asylum in the kingdom of France.

It is probable that if Mahomet II. had united all his forces in an
invasion of the kingdom of Naples, he might have pushed his conquests
as far as Rome. But the loss of his army in Hungary, and the check
experienced by his best troops before the city of Rhodes, must have
suspended or stopped the execution of his projects. Sextus IV.,
when recovered from his first terrors, implored the assistance of
Christendom. The sovereign pontiff addressed all the ecclesiastical
and secular powers, as well as the Christians of all conditions; he
conjured them, by the mercy and sufferings of Christ; by the last
judgment, in which every one would be placed according to his works;
by the promises of baptism; by the obedience due to the Church,—he
supplicated them, to preserve among themselves, at least during three
years, charity, peace, and concord. He sent legates in all directions,
charged to appease the troubles and wars which divided the Christian
world. These legates were instructed to act with moderation and
prudence; to lead nations and kings, by means of persuasion, to the
true spirit of the Gospel, and to resemble, in their pious courses,
the dove which came back to the ark, bearing the pacific olive-branch.
In order to encourage princes by his example, the pontiff ordered the
galleys he had destined to succour Rhodes, to set sail for the coast of
Naples. At the same time he commanded public prayers to be put up; and,
to draw down the blessings of Heaven upon the arms of the Christians,
and excite the piety of the faithful, he directed that the octave of
All Saints should be celebrated in the universal Church, to begin with
the year 1480, which he called in his bull the “Octave of the age.”

Previously to the taking of Otranto, Italy had been more divided than
ever. The heat of factions and the animosities which were created by
jealousy had so perverted men’s minds, that several states and many
citizens only contemplated in an invasion of the Turks the ruin of a
neighbouring state or of a rival faction. Venice was accused of having
drawn the Ottoman troops into the kingdom of Naples. We must, however,
in justice, say that the presence of danger, and particularly the
account of the cruelties practised by the fierce conquerors of Otranto,
awakened generous sentiments in all hearts; and when the sovereign
pontiff, addressing the Italians, said that the moment was come to
rise in arms, if they wished to defend their lands, their families,
their faith, their liberty, all Italy listened to his exhortations, and
united as one man against the common enemy.

The discourses and the prayers of the head of the Church did not
produce the same effect in England, Germany, or France. The legates
were everywhere received with respect, but they could not put an end to
the war between England and Scotland, or stifle the germs of a quarrel
always ready to break out between Louis XI. and the emperor Maximilian.
In a Germanic diet which was convoked, as usual, pathetic speeches were
made upon the calamities which threatened Christian Europe; but no one
took up arms.

The Ottomans, shut up in Otranto, had not, it is true, strength enough
to advance into Italy; but they might every day expect reinforcements.
After having raised three armies, the Turkish emperor levied a fourth
in Bithynia, to be employed, according to circumstances, against the
Mamelukes of Egypt, or against the Christians of the West. But even
these preparations, or the fresh invasions which they had reason to
fear, were not able to remove the general indifference. The nations
and the princes who did not believe themselves threatened with
approximate danger, returned to their divisions and their quarrels.
They had abandoned the safety of Christendom to the care of Providence,
when they learnt the death of Mahomet II.; this news appeared to be
spread everywhere at once, and was received like the announcement of a
great victory, particularly in the countries which were in dread of the
Ottoman invasions. At Rome, where the dread had been most lively, the
pope ordered prayers, festivals, and processions, which lasted three
days; and during those three days, the pacific artillery of the castle
of St. Angelo never ceased to thunder forth the intelligence of the
deliverance of Italy.

This joy of the Christians paints better than the long recitals of
history the ambition, the genius, the fortune, and the policy of the
barbarous hero of Islamism. During the course of this reign,[81] five
pontiffs had succeeded to the chair of St. Peter; all had employed the
ascendancy of their spiritual and temporal power in endeavouring to
check the progress of his arms, and all died with the grief of seeing
the growth and extension of that empire, before which all the East
trembled, and of whose invasions the West was in constant dread.

A.D. 1481-1571.

The Turks abandoned Otranto, and the divisions which arose in the
family of Mahomet suspended for a time the projects of Ottoman policy.
Jem-Jem, whom the Latin chronicles call Zizim, disputed the empire
with Bajazet, and being conquered, came into the West to await a
favourable opportunity for recommencing the war. The Knights of Rhodes
received him with great honours. He was afterwards sent into France,
and, by one of the whimsical sports of fortune, an obscure commandery
in the province of Auvergne became for a moment the asylum of a prince
who pretended to the vast empire of the Crescent. His presence among
the Christian powers gave serious uneasiness to Bajazet. The king
of Hungary and the king of Naples had already promised to give the
fugitive prince the support of their armies. The Ottoman emperor
sent ambassadors to Charles VIII.; he informed the French monarch
that his design was to conquer Egypt, and that he would voluntarily
cede Jerusalem to him if he would place Zizim in his hands. At the
same time, the sultan of Cairo sent one of the Latin fathers of the
Holy Sepulchre to the pope, and requested also that the brother of
Bajazet should be delivered up to him, as he wished to show him at the
head of his army in a war against the Turks. He offered the sovereign
pontiff, in exchange for such a great service, a hundred thousand
gold ducats, the possession of the holy city, and even of the city of
Constantinople, if they succeeded in driving the Turks from it. Charles
VIII. had not arrived at the age for reigning, and the queen regent,
engaged in reëstablishing peace in the kingdom, did not listen to the
proposition of Bajazet. Neither did the pope accept the splendid offers
of the sultan of Egypt; but the importance that appeared to be attached
to the person of Zizim gave him the idea that he could himself derive
some advantage from him. He demanded and obtained that the brother of
Bajazet should be given up to him, and then he exhorted the Christian
princes to unite with him, and promised to go in person to the conquest
of Greece and Syria. The enterprise of Innocent VIII. reminds us of
that of Pius II., and was destined to be equally unfortunate. The
pontiff was employed in his scheme, with more zeal than success, when
he died. Alexander VI., who succeeded him, had created for himself a
name which repelled the confidence of the faithful, and left no hope
that the preparations for a holy war would ever be able to divert him
from the cares of his personal ambition, or tear him away from his
profane affections.

The kingdom of Naples, however, which had occasioned so many wars,
begun and carried on under the banners of the cross, gave rise, under
these circumstances, to the idea of an enterprise which resembled a
crusade. The duke of Milan, and several other small states, constantly
occupied in disturbing Italy, and in calling thither foreign arms, for
the purpose of increasing or preserving their own power, persuaded
Charles VIII., then seated on the throne, to endeavour to establish the
rights of the house of Anjou. Their solicitations and their brilliant
promises awakened the ambition of the young king, who resolved to
conquer the kingdom of Naples, and proclaimed the design of extending
his views to the territories of the infidels.

The passion for arms, the spirit of chivalry, and the little that
remained in men’s hearts of the ancient ardour for crusades and distant
expeditions, seconded the enterprise of the French monarch. Public
prayers were offered up, and processions were formed throughout the
kingdom, for the success of an expedition against the Turks. The
preachings, or rather the poetical inspirations of some writers of the
time, announced to all Europe the deliverance of the East.

When Charles VIII. had passed the Alps with his army, all the nations
of Italy received him with the most lively demonstrations of joy; the
love of liberty, the spirit of devotion, the sentiment of gallantry,
all the passions which then prevailed, appeared to attach some hope
to the issue of this expedition. The nations looked to the king of
France and his knights for their independence. Amidst the brilliant
festivities of chivalry, the French warriors were received as the
_champions of the honour of ladies_. They gave Charles VIII. the
titles of _envoy of God_, of _liberator of the Romish Church_, and
of _defender of the faith_. All the acts of the king gave reason to
believe that his expedition had for its object the glory and safety of
Christendom. He wrote to the bishops of France to demand of them the
tenths of a crusade. “Our intention,” said he to them in his letters,
“is not only to recover our kingdom of Naples, but to secure the
welfare of Italy, and to effect the deliverance of the Holy Land.”

Whilst the nations on both sides of the Alps gave themselves up to
hope and joy, terror reigned in the kingdom of Naples. Alphonso
addressed himself to all his allies; he, in particular, implored
the succour of the Holy See, and, by a singular contrast, whilst he
placed his greatest hopes in the court of Rome, he sent ambassadors
to Constantinople, to warn Bajazet of the projects of Charles VIII.
respecting Greece, and to conjure the Mussulman emperor to assist him
in defending his kingdom against the invasion of the French. Alexander
VI., who had embraced the cause of the princes of Arragon, beheld with
the most lively inquietude the triumphant march of the king of France,
who was advancing towards Rome without encountering any obstacles. In
vain he called to his aid both the states of Italy and the Mussulman
masters of Greece; in vain he employed the ascendancy of his spiritual
power; he soon found himself obliged to submit, and to open the gates
of his capital to a prince whom he regarded as his enemy, and whom
he had by turns threatened with the anger of Heaven and with that of
Bajazet.

Thus the war which the king of France had sworn to make against the
infidels began by a victory obtained over the pope. According to one
of the conditions imposed upon the sovereign pontiff, the brother
of Bajazet was placed in the hands of Charles VIII. The unfortunate
_Jem-Jem_, who knew nothing of the policy of which he was soon to
become the victim, thanked the pope for having restored him to liberty.
He congratulated himself upon being _protected by the great king of
the West_, and entertained no doubt that the victorious arms of the
Christians would replace him on the Ottoman throne. Charles VIII.,
however, appeared but very little disposed to restore to him the
empire of Constantinople, which he had just purchased for himself. In
the course of the last century, an act was found in the chancery of
Rome, by which Andrew Palæologus, the despot of Achaia, and nephew of
Constantine, sold to the king of France all his claims to the empire
of the East, for the sum of four thousand three hundred gold ducats!
This act, by which an empire was sold in the presence of a notary, and
which could only be ratified by victory, appears to us a very curious
historical monument; and serves to enlighten us upon the spirit and
policy of these remote times. We must admit, however, that the French
monarch seemed even then to attach very little value to this kind of
treaty, and fulfilled none of the conditions of it. His attention was
principally directed towards the kingdom of Naples, which fortune was
about to place in his hands, without requiring him to fight a single
battle.

Whilst Charles prolonged his sojourn at Rome, Alphonso II., abandoned
to his own resources, a prey to terror and remorse, and pursued by
the complaints of the Neapolitans, descended from his throne, and
went to bury himself in a monastery of Sicily. His son Ferdinand, who
succeeded him, although he had driven the Turks out of the city of
Otranto, and had been proclaimed liberator of Italy, could neither
revive the courage of his army nor the fidelity of his subjects. From
the moment the arrival of the French was announced, the yoke of the
house of Arragon appeared to become every day more insupportable. When
Charles quitted the Roman states, instead of encountering the armies of
an enemy, he only met on his road with deputations which came to offer
him the crown of Naples. The capital soon received him in triumph, and
the whole kingdom placed itself under his subjection.

Fame was not long in carrying into Greece the news of the marvellous
conquests of Charles VIII. The Turks of Epirus, struck with terror,
dreaded every instant to see the French arrive. Nicolas Vignier adds,
that Bajazet was possessed by such fear, that he caused all his navy to
come to the Straits of St. George, to enable him to escape into Asia.

The presence of Zizim in the Christian army particularly excited the
alarms of the Mussulmans; but fortune had exhausted all her prodigies
in favour of the French. _Jem-Jem_, whom the king of France hoped to
exhibit to the enemies of the faith, died almost suddenly on arriving
in the kingdom of Naples. Alexander VI. was accused of bringing about
this death; Bajazet having promised him three hundred thousand gold
ducats, _if he would aid his brother in escaping from the miseries of
this life_. Turkish historians relate this event after a different
manner: they say that a barber of Constantinople, named Mustapha, was
sent to poison Zizim; and, what paints with a single stroke the spirit
and the character of the Ottoman despotism, when the barber returned to
announce that the brother of the sultan was dead, Bajazet raised him to
the post of vizier; so important did the service appear, and so worthy
of reward was the crime.

The conquests of Charles VIII., which gave the Turks so much alarm,
began to create lively inquietudes in several Christian states. A
league was formed against the French, into which entered the pope, the
emperor Maximilian, the king of Spain, and the principal states of
Italy. After the example of Charles VIII., this league assumed as a
pretext a war against the Turks; but its real design did not remain
long concealed; for it solicited the approbation and the assistance
of Bajazet. Policy, on this occasion, did not hesitate to sacrifice
Christian victims, to cement an alliance with the disciples of the
Koran. As the Greeks of Epirus and the Peloponnesus were eager to
profit by the enterprise of the king of France to shake off the yoke
of the Ottomans, they sent deputies into Italy. The senate of Venice
caused these deputies to be arrested, and gave up their papers to the
envoys of the sultan. Fifty thousand of the inhabitants of Greece
perished victims to this base act of treachery.

On another side, the inconstancy of the people, who had at first been
favourable to the arms of the king of France, and the discontent
which is always inspired by the presence of a victorious army, all
at once changed the state of things in the kingdom of Naples. The
French, who had been received with so much enthusiasm, became odious,
and the hopes of all were directed towards the family of Arragon, so
recently abandoned. Charles, instead of directing his looks towards
Greece, turned them towards France. Whilst he was in the act of causing
himself to be crowned emperor of Byzantium and king of Sicily, his
thoughts were fixed upon the abandonment of his conquests. It was
a singular contrast which the spectacle presented, of preparations
for a retreat, and a triumphal ceremony, going on at the same time.
Whilst the nobility, the clergy, and all the public bodies of the
state, came to congratulate the victorious prince, the people were
invoking the protection of Heaven against him, and the French awaited
in silence the order and signal for its departure. On the day following
his coronation, and as if he had only come to Naples for the sake of
this vain ceremony, Charles VIII. set out, accompanied by the most
distinguished of his knights, and resumed sorrowfully the road to his
own kingdom. On his arrival in Italy, he had heard nothing in his march
but benedictions and songs of triumph. On his return, he heard only the
maledictions of the people and the threats of his enemies. In the first
place he had crossed Italy without opposition; in order to leave it,
he was forced to give battle; and considered as a victory the liberty
which was left to him to drag back the wreck of his army over the Alps.

Thus terminated this enterprise of Charles VIII., which at first was
pretended to be a holy war, which was directed by a short-sighted
policy, and the consequences of which became so fatal to France and
Italy. Whilst the preparations for this war were going on, there
appeared, as we have said above, several writings in prose and verse,
in which great victories were predicted. The aim of these predictions
was not only to excite the enthusiasm of the people, but to strengthen
a weak and irresolute prince in his undertaking. When we read the
prophetic songs and hymns of the poets, we may fancy we see the French
setting out for the conquest of the holy places. But the scene changes
when we turn our eyes to the pages of history. Everything leads us
to conclude, that on this occasion religious opinions and sentiments
of chivalry were but the auxiliaries of unfortunate ambition. It is
particularly to this expedition that we may apply what J. J. Rousseau
somewhere says of the crusades: “The intrigues of cabinets embroiled
affairs, and religion was the pretext.”

The policy of Venice did not preserve her from the anger of Bajazet,
who declared war against her. Alexander VI. published a jubilate, and
demanded tenths of the clergy of Europe for the preparations for a
crusade against the Turks. The emperor Maximilian, Louis XII., and
the kings of Castile, Portugal, and Hungary, appeared to listen for
a moment to the propositions of the pope. But reciprocal mistrust
speedily dissolved this Christian league: in vain the preachers of the
crusade repeated in their discourses the menaces of Bajazet; they could
not overcome the indifference of the people; and the sovereign pontiff
found everywhere equal obstacles to the levying of the tenths and the
distribution of indulgences. The French clergy on this occasion braved
ecclesiastical censures; and what shows the decline of the pontifical
power, at least as far as regards the crusades, a simple decision of
the Faculty of Theology of Paris was at that time sufficient to stand
against all the terrible array of the menaces and thunders of Rome.

We have shown how and by what causes the spirit of the crusades had
become enfeebled. Towards the end of the fifteenth century and the
commencement of the sixteenth, two great events completed the diversion
of attention from the East. America had recently been revealed to the
ancient world, and the Portuguese had doubled the Cape of Good Hope.
There is no doubt that the progress of navigation during the holy wars
had contributed to the discoveries of Vasco de Gama and Christopher
Columbus. But these discoveries, when they once became known in Europe,
entirely occupied that active, enterprising, and adventurous spirit
which had so long kept up the ardour for expeditions against the
infidels. The direction of men’s minds, views of policy, speculations
of commerce, all were changed; and the great revolution of the
crusades on its decline, was seen, in some sort, to clash with the new
revolution which was born of the discovery and conquest of a new world.

The Venetians, masters of the ancient routes and commerce of India,
were the first to be aware of the changes that were in operation, the
consequences of which must prove so injurious to them. They secretly
sent deputies to the sultan of Cairo, as much interested as themselves
in opposing the interests of the Portuguese. The deputation from Venice
advised the sultan of Egypt to ally himself with the king of Calcutta
and other Indian powers, to attack the fleets and troops of Portugal.
The republic undertook to send into Egypt and to the coasts of Arabia
artisans to found cannon, and carpenters to construct vessels of war.
The Egyptian monarch, whose interests were the same as those of Venice,
readily entered into the plan proposed to him; and in order to arrest
the progress of the Portuguese in India, he endeavoured to inspire a
fear with regard to the holy places, which had so long been, and still
were, objects of veneration for the faithful of the West. He threatened
to raze to the ground the church of the Holy Sepulchre, to cast the
ashes and monuments of the martyrs to the winds, and to force all the
Christians of his states to abjure the faith of Christ. A Cordelier
of Jerusalem came to Rome to express the alarms of the Christians
of Palestine, and of the guardians of the holy tomb. The pope was
seized with terror, and hastened to send the Cordelier to the king of
Portugal, whom he conjured to make the sacrifice of his new conquests
to God and Christendom.[82] The Portuguese monarch received the
envoy of the pope and the Oriental Christians with kindness, gave him
considerable sums for the support of the holy places, and replied to
the sovereign pontiff, that he did not at all fear seeing the threats
of the sultan carried out, but, on the contrary, he hoped to burn both
Mecca and Medina, and bring vast regions under the law of the Gospel,
if the princes of Christendom were willing to coöperate with him.

The sultan of Egypt, who received tribute from all pilgrims, did not
destroy the churches of Jerusalem, but he attempted an expedition
against the Portuguese, in concert with the king of Cambay and
Calcutta. They equipped at Suez a fleet composed of six galleys, a
galleon, and four store-ships, in which were embarked eight hundred
Mamelukes. The Egyptian fleet descended along the shores of the Red
Sea, coasted Arabia, doubled the Gulf of Persia, and cast anchor at the
island and in the port of Diu, one of the most important points for the
commerce of India. It is of this expedition the author of the Lusiad
speaks in his ninth book: “With the help of the fleets from the port
of Arsinoë, the Calicutians hoped to reduce those of Emanuel to ashes;
but the arbiter of heaven and earth always finds means to execute the
decrees of his profound wisdom.”

The expedition of the Mamelukes, notwithstanding the success it at
first obtained, produced not the results that the sultan of Cairo and
the republic of Venice expected. The Portuguese, in their despair,
endeavoured to persuade the king of Ethiopia to divert the course of
the Nile. A project for shutting up the new routes of commerce and
the passage of the Cape of Good Hope was scarcely more reasonable.
Instead of having recourse to arms, the sultans of the Mamelukes
would have much better served the interests of Venice, and those of
their own power, if they had multiplied canals in their provinces,
and opened a commodious, quick, and safe passage for the commerce of
India: by that means they would have preserved for the navigation of
the Mediterranean the advantage it had enjoyed for ages over the
navigation of the ocean; and the maritime cities of Egypt and Italy
would not have seen the sources of their prosperity suddenly dried up.

Whilst the republic of Venice contemplated with terror the causes of
her future decline, she still inspired considerable jealousy by the
splendour of her wealth and magnificence. Many complaints arose against
the Venetians, who were universally accused of sacrificing everything
to the interests of their commerce, and of betraying or serving
the cause of the Christians, as fidelity or treachery became most
profitable to them. In a diet which Maximilian convoked at Augsburg,
Hélian, the ambassador of Louis XII., pronounced a vehement discourse
against the Venetian nation. He reproached them, in the first place,
with having thwarted, by their hostility and their intrigues, a league
formed by the pope, the emperor of Germany, the king of France, and
the king of Arragon, against the Turks. The orator then reproached
the Venetians with having refused to succour Constantinople when
besieged by Mahomet II. “Their fleet was in the Hellespont during the
siege; they could hear the groans of a Christian people, sinking under
the sword of the barbarians. Nothing could excite their pity. They
remained unaffected and motionless, and when the city was taken, they
purchased the spoils of the vanquished, and sold to the Mussulmans the
unfortunate inhabitants of Greece, who had taken refuge beneath their
banners. At a later period, when the Ottomans were besieging Otranto,
not only cities and princes, but the mendicant orders, sent assistance
to the besieged. The Venetians, whose fleet was then at anchor before
Corfu, beheld with indifference, perhaps with joy, the dangers and
the misfortunes of a Christian city. No, God cannot pardon a nation,
which, by its avarice, its jealousy, and its ambition, has betrayed
the cause of Christendom, and appears to maintain an understanding
with the Turks, in order to reign with them over the East and over the
West.” Hélian, on terminating his discourse, pressed the states and
the princes to combine their efforts, to execute the decrees of divine
justice, and complete the ruin of the republic of Venice.

This discourse, in which the name of Christianity was invoked,
but which breathed nothing but vengeance and hatred, made a lively
impression upon the assembly. The passions which inflamed the diet
of Augsburg, and which left no room for a thought of a war against
the Turks, but too plainly showed the state of agitation and discord
in which Christendom was then plunged. It is not consistent with our
purpose to speak of the league formed, in the first place, against
Venice, or of the league afterwards formed against Louis XII., or of
the events which brought trouble into Italy, and even into the bosom of
the Church, then threatened with a schism.

At the council of the Lateran, convoked by Julius II., the disorders
of Christendom were deplored, without the least remedy being proposed
for them. They touched upon the war with the Turks, without bestowing
any attention upon the means for carrying it on. The exhortations of
the pope, which were supposed to be animated by an ambitious policy,
inspired no confidence. The pontiff, whom Voltaire represents as a
bad priest but a good prince, entered in an active manner into the
wars between Christian powers. Since war was carried on in his name,
he could not fill the honourable part of a conciliator, and enjoyed
no longer the consideration attached to the title of Father of the
Faithful. He was not able to reëstablish the peace he had himself
broken, and found it impossible to direct an enterprise against the
infidels.

The preaching for a crusade, so often repeated, no longer made any
impression on men’s minds; misfortunes which never arrived had been
so often announced to nations, that they ceased to awaken any alarm.
After the death of Mahomet, the Turks seemed to have renounced all
idea of conquering Europe. Bajazet at first attacked the Mamelukes of
Egypt without success; he afterwards sunk into voluptuousness and the
pleasures of the seraglio, which gave the Christians a few years of
repose and safety. But as an indolent and effeminate prince did not
fulfil the first condition of Ottoman despotism, which was war, he
irritated the army, and his pacific tastes brought about his fall from
the throne. Selim, who succeeded him, more ambitious and more cruel
than Mahomet, accused of poisoning his father, and covered with the
blood of his family, had scarcely attained empire before he promised
to the janissaries the conquest of the world, and threatened, at the
same time, Italy, Germany, Persia, and Egypt.

In the twelfth and last sitting of the fifth council of the Lateran,
Leo X. took upon him to preach a crusade against the redoubtable
emperor of the Ottomans. He ordered to be read before the fathers of
the council a letter from the emperor Maximilian, who expressed great
grief at seeing Christendom always exposed to the invasions of a
barbarous nation.

At the same time the emperor of Germany, writing to his counsellor
at the diet of Nuremberg, expressed the desire he had always felt of
reëstablishing the empire of Constantine, and delivering Greece from
the domination of the Turks. “We would willingly,” said he, “have
employed our power and even our person in this enterprise, if the other
leaders of Christendom had assisted.” When reading these letters of
Maximilian, we might be led to believe that this prince was touched
more than others by the misfortunes of the Greeks and the perils of
Christendom. But the inconstancy and levity of his character would not
allow him to carry on with ardour an enterprise to which he appeared
to attach so much importance. He passed his life in forming projects
against the Turks, and in making war against Christian powers; and
in his old age consoled himself by thinking that the glory of saving
Europe might perhaps one day belong to a prince of his family.

Whilst the Christian princes were thus reciprocally exhorting each
other to take arms, without any one of them renouncing the interests
of his own ambition, or offering an example of a generous devotion,
Selim, after having conquered the king of Persia, attacked the army
of the Mamelukes, dethroned the sultan of Cairo, and united to his
vast dominions all the countries that the Franks had inhabited or
possessed in Asia. Jerusalem then beheld the standard of the crescent
floating over its walls, and the son of Bajazet, after the example of
Omar, profaned by his presence the church of the Holy Sepulchre.[83]
Palestine only fell under a fresh domination, and no change took
place in the fate of the Christians. But as Europe dreaded the Turks
more than the Mamelukes, against whom war had ceased to be carried
on, the news of the conquests of Selim spread consternation and grief
everywhere. It appeared to Christendom as if the holy city passed for
the first time under the yoke of the infidels; and the sentiments of
grief and mourning that the Christians then experienced, necessarily
revived the idea of delivering the tomb of Christ.

We must add that the late victories of Selim completed the overthrow of
all the powers in the East that had rivalled the Turks, and that whilst
increasing in a fearful manner the strength of the Ottoman empire, they
left it no other enemies to contend with but the nations of the West.

Leo X. contemplated seriously the dangers which threatened Christendom,
and resolved to arm the principal powers of Europe against the
Turks. The sovereign pontiff announced his project to the college of
cardinals. The prelates most distinguished for their learning and their
skill in negotiations, were sent into England, Spain, and Germany, with
the mission of appeasing all quarrels that divided princes, and forming
a powerful league against the enemies of the Christian republic. Leo
X., who declared himself beforehand the head of this holy league,
proclaimed a truce of five years among all the states of Europe, and
threatened those who disturbed the peace with excommunication.

Whilst the pope was thus giving all his attention to preparations
for a crusade, the poets and orators, whose labours he encouraged,
represented him as already the liberator of the Christian world. The
celebrated Vida, in a Sapphic ode addressed to Leo X., sang the future
labours and conquests of the pontiff. Carried away by his poetical
enthusiasm, he swore to go, clad in shining steel, to the extremities
of the world, and to drink from a brazen helmet the waters of the
Xanthus and the Indus. He boasts of cutting down with his sword the
barbarous heroes of Asia, and fancies that he already sees posterity
placing his name among those of warriors who had never known fear.
Vida, in his ode, speaks of neither Christ nor the cross, but of
Bellona and Apollo. His verses appear to be much less an inspiration of
the Gospel than an imitation of Horace; and the praises he addresses
to the head of the Christian Church resemble, both in tone and form,
those which the bard of the Tiber addressed to Augustus. Whilst Vida,
in profane verses, thus felicitated Leo X. upon the laurels he was
about to gather amidst the labours and perils of a holy war, another
writer not less celebrated, in a prose epistle printed at the head
of the Orations of Cicero, addressed the sovereign pontiff with the
same congratulations and the same eulogies. Novagero took delight in
celebrating beforehand those days of glory in which the pope would
return in triumph to the eternal city, after having extended the limits
of the Christian world,—those happy days in which all Italy, in which
all nations, should revere him as a divinity descended from heaven for
their deliverance.

Italy was then filled with fugitive Greeks, amongst whom were some
illustrious scholars, who exercised a great influence over men’s minds,
and never ceased to represent the Turks as a barbarous and ferocious
people. The Greek tongue was taught with success in the most celebrated
schools, and the new direction of studies, with the admiration which
the masterpieces of Greece inspired, added greatly to the hatred of the
people for the fierce dominators of Byzantium, Athens, and Jerusalem.
Thus all the disciples of Homer and Plato associated themselves, in
some sort, by their wishes and their discourses, with the enterprise of
the sovereign pontiff. It may have been remarked, that the manner of
preaching the crusades, and the motives alleged to excite the ardour of
the Christians, differed according to circumstances, and were almost
always analogous to the prevailing ideas of each period. In the times
of which we now speak, everything naturally bears the character and
stamp of the great age of Leo X.; and if the crusade had been able to
contribute to the restoration of letters, it was just that letters in
their turn should do something in a war undertaken against the enemies
of civilization and intelligence.

The envoys of the court of Rome were received with distinction in all
the states of Europe, and neglected neither evangelical exhortations,
nor seductions, nor promises, nor any of the resources of profane
policy, to induce Christian princes to join the crusade proclaimed by
the pope. The sacred college rejoiced at the success of their mission,
and the pope, to prove his gratitude to Heaven, and to draw down divine
blessings upon his enterprise, ordered that processions should be made
and prayers put up, during three days, in the capital of the Christian
world. He himself celebrated the divine office, distributed alms, and
walked barefooted and with his head uncovered to the church of the Holy
Apostles.

Sadoletus, secretary to the Holy See, one of the most distinguished
favourites of the Muses, and who, in the judgment of Erasmus, possessed
in his writings the copiousness and the manner of Cicero, pronounced,
in the presence of the clergy and the Roman people, a discourse, in
which he celebrated the zeal and the activity of the sovereign pontiff,
the eagerness of the Christian princes to make peace with each other,
and the desire they evinced to unite their powers against the Turks:
the orator reminded his auditory of the emperor of Germany and the king
of France, glorious pillars of Christendom; of the army of Charles,
king of Castile, whose youth exhibited all the virtues of ripened
age; of the king of England, the invincible defender of the faith; of
Emanuel, king of Portugal, always ready to sacrifice his own interests
to those of the Church; of Louis II., king of Hungary; and Sigismund,
king of Poland; the first, a young prince, the hope of Christians; the
second, worthy to be their leader; of the king of Denmark, with whose
devotion to religion Europe was well acquainted; and of James, king
of Scotland, the examples of whose family must keep him in the road
of virtue and glory. Among the Christian states, upon which humanity
and religion must build their hopes, Sadoletus did not forget the
Helvetians, a powerful and warlike nation, which burned with such zeal
for the war against the Turks, that its numerous bands of soldiers
were already prepared to march, and only waited for the signal of the
head of the Church. The holy orator finished by a vehement apostrophe
against the race of the Ottomans, whom he threatened with the united
forces of Europe, and by an invocation to God, whom he conjured to
bless the arms of so many princes, of so many Christian nations, in
order that the empire of the world might be wrested from Mahomet, and
that the praises of Jesus Christ might at length resound from the south
to the north, and from the west to the east.

Leo X. was constantly engaged with the crusade he had preached. He
consulted with able captains, and acquired information concerning
the strength of the Turks, and upon the means of attacking them with
advantage: the most certain means was to raise numerous armies. In his
letters to the princes and the faithful, he exhorted Christians not to
neglect prayers and the austerities of penitence; but he recommended
them above all things to prepare their arms, and to oppose their
redoubtable enemies with strength and valour. In concert with the
principal states of Christendom, he laid down the plan of the holy war.
The emperor of Germany was to furnish an army to which the Hungarian
and Polish cavalry should be united. The king of France, with all his
forces, all those of the Venetians, and several states of Italy, and
sixteen thousand Swiss, was to embark at Brindisi, and make a descent
upon the coast of Greece; whilst the fleets of Spain, Portugal, and
England, should set sail from Carthagena and the neighbouring ports,
to transport Spanish troops to the shores of the Hellespont. The
pope proposed to embark himself at the port of Ancona, to repair to
Constantinople, under the walls of which city all the forces of the
Christian powers were to meet.

This plan was gigantic, and never would the Ottoman empire have been
in greater danger, if such vast designs could have been carried into
execution. But the Christian monarchs were only able to observe the
truce proclaimed by the pope, and which they had accepted for a very
few months; each of them had engaged to furnish for the crusade troops
which every day became more necessary to them in their own states, and
which they wished to aggrandize or defend. The old age of Maximilian,
and the approaching vacancy of the imperial throne, at that time held
all the ambitious in a state of expectation: very shortly the rivalry
of Charles V. and Francis I. rekindled war in Europe, and Christendom,
disturbed by the quarrels of princes, no longer thought it probable
they should be invaded by the Turks.

But these political dissensions were not the only obstacles to the
execution of the projects of Leo X. Another difficulty arose from the
levy of the tenths. The clergy everywhere appeared to have the same
indifference for the wars which ruined them. The people dreaded to
see their alms employed in enterprises which had not for object the
triumph of religion. The legate of the pope in Spain addressed himself
first to the Arragonese, who replied by a formal refusal, expressed in
a national synod. Cardinal Ximenes declared, in the name of the king
of Castile, that the Spaniards did not believe in the threats of the
Turks, and that they would not give their money until the pope had
positively announced how he would employ it. If the dispositions and
the will of the court of Rome found less resistance and occasioned no
troubles in England or France, it was because Cardinal Wolsey, minister
of Henry VIII., was associated in the mission of the apostolic legate,
and that Leo X. abandoned the tenths of his kingdom to Francis I.

We have before us several historical documents which have never been
printed, and which throw a great light upon the circumstances of
which we are speaking. The first is a letter from Francis I., dated
from Amboise, the 16th of December, 1516, by which _Master Josse de
Lagarde, doctor in theology, vicar-general of the cathedral church of
Thoulouse_, is named commissary, _touching the fact of the crusade in
the diocese_. The king of France exposes in another letter the aim of
the jubilate that is about to be opened: _it was to implore means to
make war against the infidels, and conquer the Holy Land and the empire
of Greece, detained and usurped by the said infidels_. To these letters
patent are joined instructions given by the king, in concert with the
legate of the pope, for the execution of the bull which orders the
preaching of the crusade in the kingdom of France during the two years
1517 and 1518. These instructions, in the first place, recommend the
choice of good preachers, charged _to make good and devout sermons to
the people, and to explain the faculties and dispensations which are
contained in the bull_, as well as why _the just and holy causes for
which it is ordered, that during two years all other indulgences, all
other general and particular pardons, are suspended and revoked_.

After having spoken of the choice of preachers, and of the manner in
which they ought to preach, the letters patent of the king give some
instructions upon the choice of confessors. The commissary-general of
the crusade could appoint as many as seemed necessary to him for every
church in which were _troncs et questes_ (poor-boxes and gatherings)
for the jubilee. He was commanded to name six for the cathedral of the
diocese, _gens de bonne conscience, hors de suspicion_ (worthy people,
above suspicion). The ecclesiastics thus chosen by the commissary had
the mission to confess all such as were desirous of indulgences; and to
avoid the disorders that might arise from the spirit of rivalry, they
had, to the exclusion of all others, the power to make compositions and
restitutions, and give absolution, &c. &c.

In short, the royal ordinance omitted none of the circumstances which
accompanied the preaching of a crusade, or of the forms which ought to
be adopted in the distribution of indulgences. It goes so far as to
regulate the shape of the _troncs_ placed in the churches to receive
the offerings of the faithful, and the religious ceremonies that
were to be observed during the jubilee.[84] Among other orders, one
commanded that a great number of confessionals, or bills of absolution
and indulgence, should be made; that these bills, signed by a notary,
should be sent to the commissary-general, who would seal them WITH THE
SEAL sent by the king, and that there should be left upon them a blank
space for the name of him or her who wished to procure them. The royal
instruction added, that the commissary should cause his _tronc_ to be
properly and handsomely set up, and that there should be in the centre
of it a large handsome cross, upon which should be written, in great,
fair letters, IN HOC SIGNO VINCES. In order that nothing might be
wanting to excite the people to devotion, it was besides ordered, that
solemn processions should be made, and that in them a handsome banner
should be carried, upon which should be, on one side, the portraits of
the pope and the king of France, and on the other, _paintings full of
Turks and other infidels_.

In this ordinance, of which it gives us great pleasure to recall the
spirit and the expressions, that which history particularly observes,
is the numerous precautions against infidelity and fraud. The
distributors of the indulgences were obliged to consult an assessment
for their government in all expenses and reinstatements. The _troncs_,
in which the money of the faithful was deposited, had three locks and
three keys, and were only to be opened in the presence of witnesses;
among the documents we have quoted, is one which is the legal order
for the opening of the _troncs_,[85] with an account rendered of the
receipts and expenditure, in which the most minute details are not
neglected, and which shows to what a degree exactitude and watchfulness
were carried. These rigorous precautions were the more necessary, from
the people being led to be suspicious by the examples of past times;
it was pretty well known that many of the collectors of the money
for the crusades were not _people of worth, and above suspicion_.
The more sacred the motive for levying this tribute was said to be,
the more promptly was suspicion awakened; and the more anxious did
charity itself appear as to the manner in which its offerings might
be expended. Upon this point, as upon others, authority had so much
the more necessity for keeping a severe watch, from there always
being among the orators of the crusades some who showed more zeal
than wisdom, and whose preachings were really a subject of scandal.
As most of them received a salary proportionate with the amount
of money dropped into the _troncs_ of the churches, many did not
hesitate to exaggerate the promises of the sovereign pontiff and the
privileges attached to gifts of charity. History gives us the example
of a preacher who put forth from the evangelical pulpit the following
culpable maxim: _When a piece of money shall be placed in the tronc of
the crusade for the deliverance of a soul from purgatory, immediately
that soul will be delivered, and will fly away towards heaven_. The
Faculty of Theology of Paris censured this proposition as contrary to
the dogmas of the Church. The prudence of the heads of the Gallican
Church, and the wise measures adopted by the king of France, thus
prevented great disorders. It was not so in Germany, where the greatest
excitement and dissatisfaction prevailed, and where seeds of heresy and
trouble began to spring up even in the bosom of the clergy.

It may have been observed, how much more easy the court of Rome
had hitherto daily made the opening of the treasury of pontifical
indulgences. In the early expeditions to the East, these indulgences
were only granted to the pilgrims of the Holy Land. They were
afterwards granted to all who contributed to the support of the
Crusaders. Still later, they were granted to the faithful who listened
to the sermons of the preachers of the crusades; sometimes even to
those who were present at the mass of the pope’s legates. As the
distribution or sale of indulgences was an inexhaustible source of
wealth, Leo X. took upon him to grant them not only to those who, by
their alms, were willing to aid in defraying the expenses of the war
against the Turks, but to all the faithful whose pious liberality
should contribute to the amount necessary for the completion of the
building of the church of St. Peter, which had been begun by his
predecessor Julius II. Although this destination might have something
noble and truly useful in it; although it might be worthy, in some
sort, of an age in which the arts burst forth with great splendour,
many Christians, particularly in Germany, saw nothing in it but an
actual profanation, and a new means by which the court of Rome sought
to enrich itself at the expense of the faithful.

Albert, archbishop of Mayence, charged with appointing the preachers
of the jubilee and the distributors of papal indulgences, named for
Saxony, Dominicans, to the exclusion of Cordeliers or Augustines,
who had sometimes filled these kinds of missions. The latter showed
themselves jealous of this preference; and as no precaution had been
taken either to avert the effects of this species of rivalry, or put
a stop to the abuses which might be committed, it happened that the
Augustines censured severely the conduct, manners, and opinions of the
Dominicans, and that the latter but too well justified the complaints
of their adversaries.

Luther, an Augustine monk, put himself forward in these violent
quarrels, and distinguished himself by his fervid eloquence;[86] he
spoke strongly against the preachers that had been selected to receive
the contributions of the faithful; and among the propositions he put
forth from the pulpit, history has preserved the following, which
was censured by Leo X.: “It is a sin to resist the Turks, seeing
that Providence makes use of this faithless nation, to visit the
iniquities of his people.” This strange maxim obtained faith amongst
the partisans of Luther; and when the pope’s legate demanded, at the
diet of Ratisbon, the levy of the tenths destined for the crusade, he
met with a warm opposition. Murmurs and complaints arose in all parts
of Germany. The court of Rome was reproached with putting holy things
up to sale: it was compared to the unfaithful shepherd, who shears the
sheep confided to his care; it was accused of despoiling credulous
people; of ruining nations and kings; and of accumulating upon
Christians more miseries than the domination of the Turks could cause
them.

For more than a century, these kinds of accusations resounded
throughout Germany, every time that money was raised for crusades;
or that any tribute whatever was imposed upon the Christians by the
sovereign pontiff. The reformers took advantage of this disposition of
men’s minds to circulate new ideas, and to attempt a revolution in the
Church. Among a nation led by its genius and character to speculative
ideas, philosophic and religious novelties were sure to find more
warm partisans and ardent apostles than elsewhere. It must likewise
be added, that Germany was one of the countries of Christendom that
Rome had, in its omnipotence, spared the least; and that the spirit
of opposition had _there_ taken rise, amidst long quarrels between
the priesthood and the empire. When once the tie that united the minds
of people was broken, and the yoke of an authority consecrated by
time was shaken off, opposition knew no bounds; there was no longer a
limit to opinions: the Church was attacked on all sides at once, and
by a thousand different sects, all opposed to the court of Rome, and
most of them opposed to each other. From that period burst forth that
revolution which was destined to separate for ever many nations of
Christendom from the Romish communion.

It is not our task to describe the events which accompanied the schism
of Luther; but it is curious to observe, that the origin of the
Reformation should be connected, not directly with the crusades, but
with the abuse of the indulgences promulgated for the crusades.

Like all who begin revolutions, Luther was not at all aware of the
extent to which his opposition to the court of Rome might be carried:
he at first began by attacking some abuses of the pontifical authority,
and soon finished by attacking the authority itself. The opinions he
had kindled by his eloquence, the passions he had given birth to among
his disciples, led him himself much further than he could possibly have
foreseen: those who had the greatest reason to combat the doctrines of
the reformers saw, no more than he did, what those doctrines were to
bring with them. Germany, divided into a thousand different states,
and given up to all kinds of disorders, had no authority sufficiently
strong and sufficiently prescient to anticipate the effects of a
schism. At the court of Rome nobody could have believed that a simple
monk could ever shake the pillars of the Church. Amidst the pomp and
the splendour of the arts which he patronized, and diverted by the
cares of an ambitious policy, Leo X. perhaps was too neglectful of the
progress of Luther. Above all, he was wrong in entirely abandoning the
expedition against the Turks, which he had announced to the Christian
world, and which might, at least at the first, have offered a useful
distraction to minds agitated by ideas of reformation. The undertaking
of a holy war which he had followed up with so much warmth at the
beginning of his pontificate and for which the poets promised him
eternal glory,—this enterprise, at his death, no longer engaged his
thoughts, or those of his contemporaries.

In the mean time Soliman, the successor of Selim, had recently taken
possession of Belgrade, and threatened the isle of Rhodes. This isle
was then the last colony of the Christians in Asia. As long as the
Knights of St. John remained masters of it, the sultan of the Turks had
reason to fear that some great expedition might be formed in the West
for the recovery of Palestine and Syria, or even for the conquest of
Egypt, which had lately been united to the Ottoman empire.

The grand-master of the Hospitallers sent to solicit the assistance of
Christian Europe. Charles V. had just united, in his own person, the
imperial crown with that of the Spains. Entirely occupied with opposing
the power of France, and anxious to draw Pope Adrian VI. into a war
against the most Christian king, the emperor was very little affected
by the danger which threatened the Knights of Rhodes. The sovereign
pontiff did not dare to succour them, or solicit for them the support
of Christendom. Francis I. exhibited more generous sentiments; but in
the situation in which his kingdom was then placed, he was unable to
send them the assistance he had promised.

The Knights of Rhodes were left to their own resources. History has
celebrated the labours and the prodigies of heroism by which the order
of the Hospitallers illustrated its defence. After many months of
combats, Rhodes fell into the hands of Soliman. It was a sad spectacle
to behold the grand-master L’Isle-Adam, the father of his knights
and of his subjects, dragging with him the sad remains of the order,
and all the people of Rhodes, who had determined to follow him. He
landed at first upon the coast of Naples, not far from the spot where
Virgil makes the pious Æneas land, with the glorious wreck of Troy.
If the spirit of the crusades could have revived, what heart could
have remained unmoved, at seeing this venerable old man, followed by
his faithful companions in misfortune, seeking an asylum, imploring
compassion, and soliciting, as a reward of their past services, a
little corner of earth upon which he and his warriors might still
unfurl the standard of religion, and combat the infidels.

When the grand-master set forward on his march towards Rome, Adrian
VI. had declared war against the king of France; a league was formed
by the sovereign pontiff, the emperor, the king of England, and the
duke of Milan. In this state of affairs, the Christians of the East
could not hope for any succour. After the death of Adrian, Pope Clement
VII. showed himself more favourable to the order of the Hospitallers.
He received the grand-master with all the demonstrations of a
paternal tenderness. When the chancellor of the order related, in the
consistory, the exploits and the reverses of the knights, the sovereign
pontiff and the Romish prelates shed tears, and promised to interest
all the powers of the Christian world for such noble sufferers.
Unfortunately for the order of St. John, the powers of Europe were more
than ever divided among themselves. Francis I. was made prisoner at the
battle of Pavia. The pope, who had wished to resume the old papal title
of the conciliator, only drew down upon himself the hatred and the
anger of Charles V. Amidst these divisions, the Knights of Rhodes were
forgotten; and it was not till ten years after the conquest of Soliman,
that these noble warriors were able to obtain from the emperor, the
rock of Malta, where they became again the terror of the Mussulmans.

Whilst Europe was thus troubled, the conqueror of Rhodes and Belgrade
reappeared in a threatening attitude upon the banks of the Danube.
Louis II. endeavoured to reanimate the patriotism of the Hungarians,
and caused the old custom of exposing in public a bloody sabre to
be revived, as a signal of war and of danger for the country. But
neither the exhortations of the monarch, nor those of the clergy, nor
even the approach of the enemy, were able to appease the discords,
born of feudal anarchy and the lengthened misfortunes of Hungary. The
Hungarian monarch was only able to get together an army of twenty-two
thousand men, to oppose to that of Soliman. Louis, a young prince
without experience, who allowed himself to be led, even in war, by
ecclesiastics, named, as general of his army, Paul Temory, lately
issued from a convent of Cordeliers, to become archbishop of Colotza.
We are unable to ascertain whether, in this circumstance, the king of
Hungary was obliged to put himself in the hands of the clergy, because
he was abandoned by the nobility; or, if the nobility abandoned him,
because he had put himself in the hands of the clergy. As the pope
constantly excited the Hungarians to defend their own country, the
ecclesiastics of Hungary, who were his interpreters to the faithful,
and even to the king, must naturally have exercised a great influence
in all that concerned the crusade.

In this war twenty-two thousand Christians had to contend with an
army of a hundred thousand Ottomans; and this was the Hungarian army
which, according to the advice of the bishops, offered battle to the
infidels. What is very remarkable in holy wars is, that the clergy
may almost always be recognised by the rashness of the enterprises.
The persuasion of the ecclesiastics, that they were fighting for the
cause of God, with their ignorance of the art of war, prevented them
from seeing perils, did not allow them to doubt of victory, and made
them often neglect the means of human prudence. It was then, in the
confidence of a miraculous success, that the archbishop of Colotza
did not hesitate to venture upon a decisive battle. The clergy who
accompanied him animated the combatants by their discourses, and set
an example of bravery; but religious and warlike enthusiasm cannot
triumph over numbers, and most of the prelates received the palm of
martyrdom in the _mêlée_. Eighteen thousand Christians were left upon
the field of battle; and what added greatly to the misfortune, Louis
II. disappeared, and perished in the general rout, leaving his kingdom
torn by factions and ravaged by the Turks.

The defeat of the Hungarians brought despair to the mind of Clement
VII. The pontiff wrote to all the sovereigns of Europe; he even formed
the project of visiting them in person, and to engage them by his
prayers and his tears to defend Christendom. Neither the touching
exhortations of the pope, nor his suppliant attitude, were able to move
the princes; and it is here that we can plainly perceive the rapid
decline of the pontifical power, which we have so lately seen armed
with all the terrors of the Church, and whose decisions were considered
as the decrees of Heaven. War was about to be rekindled in Italy, and
the pope was not long in becoming himself the victim of the disorders
he would willingly have prevented. The imperial troops entered Rome as
into an enemy’s city. The emperor, who assumed the title of temporal
head of the Church, did not fear to offer to Europe the scandal of the
captivity of a pontiff.

Although the authority of the head of the Church no longer inspired the
same veneration, or exercised the same ascendancy over men’s minds,
nevertheless the violences of Charles V. excited general indignation.
England and France flew to arms. All Europe was troubled: some wished
to avenge the pope, others to take advantage of the disorder; but none
thought of defending Christendom against the invasion of the Turks.

Clement VII., however, from the depths of the prison in which the
emperor detained him, still watched over the defence of Christian
Europe: his legates went to exhort the Hungarians to fight for their
God and their country. As the pontiff had been ruined by the calamities
of war, he implored the charity of the faithful; he ordered that the
plate should be sold in all the churches of Italy; he solicited the
assistance of several Italian states; and he ordered that indulgences
might be distributed and the tenths collected to support the expenses
of the holy war.

The active solicitude of the pope went so far as to seek enemies
against the Turks even in the East and among the infidels. Acomath, who
had in Egypt shaken off the yoke of the Porte, received encouragement
from the court of Rome. A legate of the pope went to promise him the
support of the Christians of the West. The sovereign pontiff kept up
continual relations on all the frontiers and in all the provinces
of the Turkish empire, in order to be made aware of the designs and
preparations of the sultans of Constantinople. It is not out of place
to say here, that most of the predecessors of Clement had taken, as
he did, the greatest care in watching the projects of the infidels.
Thus the heads of the Church did not confine themselves to exciting
the Christians to defend themselves upon their own territories; but,
like vigilant sentinels, they constantly kept their eyes fixed upon the
enemies of Christendom, to warn Europe of the perils which threatened
it.

When the emperor broke the chains of Clement VII., the holy pontiff
forgot the outrages he had received, to give all his cares to the
danger of the German empire, which was about to be attacked by the
Turks. The capital of Austria was soon besieged, and only owed its
safety to the bravery of its garrison. In the diets of Augsburg and
Spire, the pope’s legate endeavoured, in the name of religion, to
rouse the ardour of the people of Germany for their own defence. A
physician, named Riccius, spoke in the name of the emperor, and added
his exhortations to those of the apostolic legate; he made an appeal
to the ancient virtue of the Germans, and reminded his auditors of the
example of their ancestors, who had never endured a foreign domination.
He pressed princes, magistrates, and people, to fight for their own
independence and safety. Ferdinand, king of Bohemia and Hungary, urged
the princes and states of the empire to adopt prompt and effective
measures against the Turks. These exhortations and counsels met with
but little success, but had to encounter a strong opposition from the
still too active spirit of the new doctrines. All the cities, all the
provinces, were occupied by questions agitated by the Reformation. We
may at this time compare the nations of Germany, menaced by the Turks,
to the Greeks of the lower empire, whom history represents as given up
to vain disputes, when the barbarians were at their gates. As among the
Greeks, there was a crowd of men among the Germans, who entertained
less dread of seeing in their cities the turban of Mahomet than the
tiara of the pontiff of Rome; some, governed by a spirit of fatalism
scarcely to be equalled in the Koran, asserted that God had judged
Hungary, and that the safety of that kingdom was not in the power of
men; others (the Millenarians) announced with a fanatical joy the
approach of the last judgment; and whilst the preachers of the crusades
were exhorting the Germans to defend their country, the jealous pride
of an impious sect called for the days of universal desolation.

The paternal proceedings and counsels of the pope were neither able to
calm men’s minds, nor to rekindle an enthusiasm for the holy war, in
Germany, or even among the Hungarians. Ferdinand, brother of Charles
V., whom the imperial power had caused to be declared king of Hungary;
and the vaiwode of Transylvania, who, with permission of the Turks,
reigned over the ruins of his country, were contending for this
unfortunate kingdom, oppressed at the same time by its enemies and its
allies. When Soliman returned, for the third time, to the banks of
the Danube, called thither by a party of the Hungarian nobility, he
found no army to oppose his march. The Ottomans advanced towards the
capital of Austria, and prepared to invade the richest provinces of
Germany. So pressing a danger determined the head and the princes of
the empire to unite their forces against the common enemy. But when the
Turks retired in disorder, no one thought of either fighting with them,
or pursuing them in their precipitate retreat. The king of Hungary,
abandoned all at once by the Germans, and fearing fresh attacks, had
no resource but to sue to his enemies for peace. It is a circumstance
worthy of remark, that the pope was comprised in the treaty: Soliman
gave the title of father to the Roman pontiff, and that of brother to
the king of Hungary. Clement VII., after so many useless attempts to
interest the princes of Christendom, appeared to entertain no hope but
in Providence; and exclaimed with bitterness, when approving the issue
of the pacific negotiations, “We have nothing left but to supplicate
Heaven to watch itself over the Christian world.”

It might be believed that the holy wars were drawing towards an end,
when the head of the Church had laid down his arms, and made peace with
the infidels. But this treaty of peace, like others that had preceded
it, could only be considered as a truce, and war would most likely
break out again when either the Christians or the Mussulmans saw any
hopes of carrying it on with advantage. Such was the policy of the
times; particularly that which governed the Christian and Mussulman
powers in their mutual relations. Soliman had abandoned his projects
upon Germany and Hungary, less out of respect for treaties, than
because he was employing his forces against the Persians, or that he
required his army to quell some revolts which had broken out in Asia
against his authority. On the other side, Christendom left the Ottomans
in peace, because it was a prey to discord; and because most Christian
princes, occupied by their own interests, listened to nothing but the
counsels of their ambition.

Europe had at that time three great monarchs, whose united strength
would have been quite sufficient to crush the power of the Turks;
but these three princes were as much opposed to each other by their
policy as by their character and their genius. Henry VIII. of England,
who had refuted Luther, and leagued himself with the king of France,
to deliver the captive pope, had just separated himself from the
Romish Church. Sometimes allied with France, sometimes allied with
the emperor, occupied in bringing about the triumph of the schism
of which he was the apostle and the head, he had no time to bestow
upon war with the infidels. Francis I. had, in the first place, made
pretensions to the imperial crown, and afterwards to the duchy of Milan
and the kingdom of Naples. These pretensions, which were a source of
misfortunes to himself and France, disturbed the whole of his reign,
and never allowed him an opportunity for seriously undertaking a
crusade against the Turks, a crusade which he himself had preached
in his states. The feeling of vengeance and jealousy which animated
him against a fortunate and powerful rival, inspired him twice with
the idea of seeking an alliance with Soliman. To the great scandal of
Christendom, an Ottoman fleet was received in the port of Marseilles,
and the standard of the lilies was mingled with the crescent under
the walls of Nice. Charles V., master of all the Spains, head of the
German empire, sovereign of the Low Countries, and possessor of several
empires in the new world, was much more anxious to humble the French
monarchy, and establish his domination in Europe, than to defend
Christendom against the invasion of the Turks. During the greater part
of his reign, this monarch conciliated the Protestants of Germany,
on account of the Ottomans; and avoided collision with the Ottomans,
on account of his enemies in the Christian republic. He satisfied
himself with protecting, by his arms, the capital of Austria, when
threatened by the Turks; but when the pope conjured him to employ
his forces for the deliverance of Hungary, he preferred attempting
an expedition to the coast of Africa. A war against the Moors of
Africa was more popular in Spain than an expedition upon the Danube;
and Charles was more desirous of acquiring popularity among the
Spaniards, than of meriting the gratitude of Christendom. The Barbary
powers were recently formed, under the protection of the Ottoman
Porte, and began to render themselves formidable in the Mediterranean.
Charles carried his arms twice to the coast of Africa: in the first
expedition, he got possession of Tunis, planted his standards upon the
ruins of Carthage, and delivered twenty thousand captives, who went
to publish his victories in every part of the Christian world; in the
second expedition, he would have annihilated the Barbary powers, so
destructive to the navigation of the Franks; but a hurricane, which
destroyed his fleet and his army, dispersed the hopes of commerce and
navigators.

At the time Charles experienced so great a disaster whilst combating
the Mussulmans of Africa, the Ottomans, invited by Francis I., were
ravaging the coasts of Italy, and had recently entered Hungary, from
whence they threatened Germany.

Then fresh cries of alarm resounded all over Europe, and among those
who exhorted the nations to oppose the Turks, the voice of Martin
Luther was heard. In a book entitled _Prayer against the Turk_, the
reformer condemned the indifference of people and kings, and advised
the Christians to resist the Mussulmans, if they did not wish to be
led into captivity, as the children of Israel had formerly been. In a
formula of prayer which he had composed, he expressed himself thus:
“Arise, Lord, great God, and sanctify thy name, which thy enemies
outrage; strengthen thy reign, which they wish to destroy, and suffer
us not to be trampled under-foot by those who are not willing that thou
shouldst be our God.”

Murmurs had several times arisen against Luther, who was accused of
having, by his doctrines, weakened the courage of the Germans. Some
time before the period of which we are speaking, he published an
apology, in which, without disavowing the famous proposition censured
by the pope, he gave to his words a different sense from that which
the court of Rome gave them, and which he himself, no doubt, had given
them in the first instance. All his explanations, which it is not very
easy to analyze, were reduced to this idea:—“That it was allowable
to fight with the Turks, but that it was not allowable to fight with
them under the banners of Christianity.” Although the leader of the
Reformation required all the qualities of a perfect Christian in the
warriors called upon to fight the Mussulmans, and although he drew
all the principles of his preaching from the religion of Christ; the
standard of the cross in a Christian army, caused him, he said, more
horror than the sight of the demon. The true motive for his repugnance
for a crusade may be easily guessed; a crusade appeared necessarily to
require the concurrence of the pope; and the concurrence of the pope,
in a war which interested Christendom, was the thing in the world
most dreaded by Luther. He had so strong an aversion to the court of
Rome, that in his writings he asks himself if war ought not to be made
against the Pope as well as the Turk; and in the excess of his hatred,
does not hesitate to answer, _against the one as against the other_.

We will not repeat here the declamations and the sophisms of Luther.
Through the puerile subtleties and the contrary reasonings which he
employs for his justification, we must, however, remark the distinction
he has made between civil authority and ecclesiastical authority: it is
to the first, says the reformer, that it belongs to combat the Turks;
the duty of the second is to wait, to submit, to pray, and to groan.
He adds, that war was not the business of bishops, but of magistrates;
that the emperor, in this circumstance, ought to be considered as the
head of the German confederation, and not as the protector of the
Church, nor as the support of the Christian faith; a title which can
only properly be given to Jesus Christ. All these arguments, doubtless,
had something reasonable in them; and the opinion of Luther upon
the civil authority, although he might have adopted it only out of
opposition to the papal power, would have obtained the approbation of
enlightened minds, if he had not employed, in supporting it, all the
passion of irritated pride; and if his apology, in particular, had not
been stained by abuse which decency will not allow history to repeat.

Not content with this apology, which had for title, _Of the War against
the Turks_, Luther, two years after the siege of Vienna, published
another work, entitled, _A Military Discourse_, in which he also urges
the Germans to take arms. This second discourse begins, as the first
had done, by theological distinctions and subtleties; by declamations
against the pope and the bishops; by predictions upon the approaching
end of the world; and upon the power of the Turks; which the author
finds clearly announced in Daniel. Although he endeavours to prove, as
in his first writing, that the war against the Mussulmans is not at all
a religious war, but an enterprise entirely political; he promises,
not the less, the palms of martyrdom to those who shall die with arms
in their hands. He represents this war as agreeable to the Divinity,
and as the duty of a true disciple of the Gospel. “Thy arm and thy
lance,” says he to every Christian soldier who shall take arms against
the infidels, “shall be the arm and the lance of God. In immolating
Turks, thou wilt not shed innocent blood, and the world will consider
thee as the executioner of the decrees of divine justice; for thou wilt
but kill those whom God has himself condemned. The Turk,” adds he,
“ravishes terrestrial life from Christians, and procures them eternal
life; he at the same time kills himself, and precipitates himself into
hell.” Luther appears to be so penetrated with this idea, that he is
on the point of deploring the fate of the Mussulmans; and to chastise
indifferent Christians, and pusillanimous Germans, he has no punishment
to wish them, unless it be that they should become Turks, and thus be
the property of the devil.

A short extract is not sufficient to show what whimsical and singular
ideas are contained in Luther’s discourse; it may, however, be easily
perceived how much this kind of preaching differs from that of the
orators who preached the crusade in preceding ages. In the second part
of his discourse, the leader of the Reformation addressed himself to
the various classes of society; to the nobility, who are immersed in
luxury and pleasures, but for whom the hour of fight is at length
come; to the citizens and merchants, for too long a time addicted to
usury and cupidity; to the labourers and peasants, whom he accuses of
deceiving and robbing their neighbours. The tone of the preacher is
full of an excessive severity; he speaks like a man who feels no sorrow
at the misfortunes which are about to happen, because he has foretold
them, and his warnings and prophecies have been despised. He says, with
a sort of satisfaction, that after days of joy and debauchery, after
seasons of festivity and pleasures, comes the time of tears, miseries,
and alarms. He finishes by a vehement apostrophe, addressed to all who
shall remain deaf to his voice, and whom the enemy shall find without
defence: “Listen now, then, to the devil in the Turk, you who are not
willing to listen to God in Jesus Christ; the Turk will burn your
dwellings; he will bear away your cattle and your harvests; he will
outrage and slaughter your wives and your daughters before your eyes;
he will impale your little children upon the very stakes of the hedge
which serves as an inclosure to your heritage; he will immolate you
yourselves, or will carry you away into Turkey, to expose you in the
market, like unclean animals; it is he who will teach you what you will
have lost, and what you ought to have done. It is to the Turk belongs
the task to humble the haughty nobility, to render citizens docile, and
to chastise and tame the gross multitude.”

Luther then gives his advice upon the manner of making war against
the Turks; he is desirous that all should defend themselves even to
death, and that all the countries through which the enemy was about to
pass should be laid waste; he terminates his discourse by addressing
consolations to them who shall fall into the hands of the Turks, and
traces out for them a plan of conduct for the time of their captivity
among the infidels.

This language, of which we are far from exaggerating the singularity,
was not at all calculated to warm and rally men’s minds for a struggle
against the enemies of Germany and Christendom. At this period, the
princes and the states of the empire frequently met to deliberate
on their own dangers. It was more easy to convoke diets than to get
together armies. The Protestants were not willing to take arms against
the Turks, for fear of strengthening their adversaries; and the
Catholics were restrained by their fear of the Protestants: amidst the
violent debates that agitated Germany, the Church, and even the civil
authority which Luther had proclaimed, lost all that unity of action,
without which it is impossible to combat a formidable enemy with
advantage. Among the Germans, the spirit of sect weakened by degrees
the spirit of patriotism; among Christians, the hatred they conceived
for one another caused them to lose that pious ardour which had
animated them against the Mussulmans. In proportion as the Reformation
proceeded, Germany became divided into two parties, which were like two
enemies face to face. Both parties soon had recourse to arms, and, in
the fury of civil wars, the invasions of the Turks were forgotten. It
was thus that the Reformation, which took its birth at the end of the
crusades, completely extinguished the enthusiasm for holy wars, and
no longer permitted the nations of Christendom to unite against the
infidels.

The name of the Turks was still pronounced in the diets of Germany, and
even in the council of Trent; but no measures were adopted for making
war against them. From that time there passed nothing in either Hungary
or the East which was able to fix the attention of the Christian world.
The only event upon which Europe seemed interested was the defence
of Malta against all the forces of Soliman. This defence increased
the reputation of the military order of St. John. The port of Malta
became the only place of shelter for Christian vessels on the route to
Egypt, Syria, or Greece. The corsairs of Tunis and Algiers, and all the
pirates who infested the Mediterranean, trembled at the sight of the
rock, and of the galleys over which floated the standard of the cross.
This military colony, always armed against the infidels, and constantly
recruited from the warlike nobility of Europe, offered, up to the end
of the eighteenth century, a living image of ancient chivalry, and of
the heroic epoch of the crusades. We have described the origin of this
illustrious order,—we have followed it in its days of triumph, and in
its reverses, still more glorious than its victories. We will not say
by what revolution it is fallen, nor how it has lost that isle which
was given to it as the reward of its bravery, and which it defended,
during more than two hundred years, against the Ottoman forces and the
barbarians of Africa.

Whilst the Turks miscarried in their expedition against Malta, Soliman
was pursuing the war in Hungary, and still threatening Germany. He died
on the banks of the Danube, in the midst of victories obtained over
the Christians. Christendom must have rejoiced at his death, as it had
rejoiced at the death of Mahomet II. Under the reign of Soliman, who
was the greatest prince of the Ottoman dynasty, the Turks not only
invaded a part of the German empire, but their marine, seconded by the
genius of Barberossa and Dragut, made a progress that must have alarmed
all the maritime powers of Europe. Selim II., who succeeded him, had
neither his qualities nor the genius of most of his predecessors; but
he followed not the less their projects of aggrandizement, or the views
of their ambitious policy. The Ottomans, masters of the coasts of
Greece, Syria, and Africa, were desirous of adding to their conquests
the kingdom of Cyprus, which was then possessed by the Venetians.

After a siege of several months, the Ottoman army obtained possession
of the cities of Famagousta and Nicosia. The Turks stained their
victory by cruelties without example. The bravest of the defenders of
Cyprus expiated in tortures the glory of an obstinate resistance; and
it may be said, it was the executioners that finished the war. The
barbarity of the Turks disgusted the Christian nations afresh; and the
maritime countries of the West beheld with terror an invasion which
threatened to exclude Europeans from every road to the East.

At the approach of the danger, Pope Pius V. exhorted the Christian
powers to take up arms against the Ottomans. A confederation was
formed, consisting of the republic of Venice, Philip II., king of
Spain, and the pope himself, always ready to add the authority of his
example to his preaching. A numerous fleet, equipped for the defence
of the isle of Cyprus, arrived too late in the eastern seas, and was
only able to repair the disgrace of the Christian arms. This fleet,
commanded by Don John of Austria, met that of the Ottomans in the
Gulf of Lepanto. It was in this sea Antony and Augustus disputed the
mastership of the Roman world. The battle which took place between the
Christians and the Turks reminds us in some degree of the spirit and
enthusiasm of the crusades. Before the commencement of the conflict,
Don John hoisted on board his ship the standard of St. Peter, which he
had received from the pope, and the army saluted with cries of joy this
religious signal of victory. The leaders of the Christians passed along
the line of barques, exhorting the soldiers to fight for the cause of
Christ. All the warriors, falling upon their knees, implored divine
protection, and arose full of confidence in their own bravery and the
miracles of heaven.

No naval battle of antiquity can be compared to this of Lepanto, in
which the Turks fought for the empire of the world, and the Christians
for the defence of Europe. The courage and skill of Don John and the
other leaders, the intrepidity and ardour of the soldiers, and the
superiority of the Franks in manœuvring their vessels, and in their
artillery, procured for the Christian fleet a decisive victory. Two
hundred of the enemy’s ships were taken, burnt, or sunk. The wreck of
the Turkish fleet, whilst announcing the victory of the Christians,
carried consternation to the coasts of Greece and to the capital of the
Ottoman empire.

Terrified by the results of this battle, Selim caused the famous castle
of the Dardanelles to be built, which to the present day defends the
entrance to the canal of Constantinople. At the time of the battle, the
roof of the temple of Mecca fell in, and the Turks believed they saw in
this accident a sign of the anger of Heaven. The roof was of wood; and
that it might become, says Cantemir, a more solid emblem of the empire,
the son of Soliman ordered it to be reconstructed of brick.

Whilst the Turks deplored the first reverse their arms had met with,
the whole of Christendom learnt the news of the victory of Lepanto
with the greatest joy. The Venetians, who had awaited in terror the
issue of the battle, celebrated the triumph of the Christian fleet by
extraordinary festivities. In order that no feeling of sadness should
be mingled with the universal joy, the senate set all prisoners at
liberty, and forbade the subjects of the republic to wear mourning
for their relations or friends who had been killed fighting against
the Turks. The battle of Lepanto was inscribed upon coins, and as the
infidels were defeated on the day of St. Justin, the seigneury ordered
that this happy day should be every year a festival for the whole
population of Venice.

At Toledo, and in all the churches of Spain, the people and the
clergy offered up hymns of gratitude to Heaven for the victory it had
granted to the valour of the Christian soldiers. No nation, no prince
of Europe, was indifferent to the defeat of the Turks; and, if one
historian may be believed, the king of England, James I., celebrated
in a poem the glorious day of Lepanto.

As the pope had effectively contributed to the success of the Christian
arms, it was at Rome that the strongest symptoms of delight were
exhibited. Mark Antony Colonna, who had commanded the vessels of the
sovereign pontiff, was received in triumph, and conducted to the
Capitol, preceded by a great number of prisoners of war. The ensigns
taken from the enemy were suspended in the church of Ara-Cœli. After
a solemn mass, Mark Antony Mureti pronounced the panegyric of the
triumphant general. Thus the ceremonies of ancient Rome were mingled
with those of the modern, to celebrate the valour and exploits of
the defenders of Christendom. The Church itself was desirous of
consecrating a victory gained over its enemies among its festivals;
Pius V. instituted one in honour of the Virgin, by whose intercession
it was believed the Mussulmans had been conquered. This festival was
celebrated on the 7th October, the day of the battle of Lepanto, under
the denomination of “Our Lady of Victories.”

Thus a unanimous concert of prayers and thanksgivings arose towards
heaven, and all Christians at the same time showed their gratitude
to the God of armies for having delivered Europe from the invasion
of the Mussulmans. But it was not long before this happy harmony was
disturbed: ambition, reciprocal mistrusts, diversity of interests, all
that had till that time favoured the progress of the Turks, prevented
the Christians from deriving the proper advantages from their victory.
The Venetians were anxious to pursue the war, in order to recover the
isle of Cyprus; but Philip II., dreading any increase in the power
of Venice, withdrew from the confederation. The Venetian republic,
abandoned by its allies, hastened to make peace. It obtained it by
sacrificing all the possessions it had lost during the war,—a strange
result of victory; by which the vanquished dictated laws to the
conqueror, and which plainly shows us to what extent the pretensions of
the Turks would have been carried if fortune had favoured their arms.

The war which was terminated by the battle of Lepanto, was the last in
which the standard of the cross animated or rallied Christian warriors.

The spirit of the holy wars at first arose from popular opinions.
When these opinions became weakened and great powers were formed,
all that relates to war or peace became concentrated in the councils
of monarchs. No more projects for distant expeditions were formed in
public councils; no more warlike enterprises were recommended from the
pulpits of the churches, or before assemblies of the faithful. States
and princes, placed at the head of human affairs, even when they made
war against the Mussulmans, obeyed much less the influence of religious
ideas than interests purely political. From that period the enthusiasm
of the multitude, and all the passions that had given birth to the
crusades, were reckoned as nothing.

The alliance of Francis I. with Soliman was at first a great scandal
for all Christendom. The king of France justified himself by accusing
the ambition and the perfidy of Charles V. His example was quickly
followed by Charles himself, and by other Christian states. Policy,
disengaging itself more and more from that which was religious in it,
came at last to consider the Ottoman Porte, no longer an enemy against
whom it was a duty always to be fighting, but as a great power, whom
it was sometimes necessary to conciliate, and whose support might be
sought without outraging the Deity, or affecting the interests of the
Church.

As the voice of the sovereign pontiff was always the instrument to
summon Christians to take arms against the infidels, the spirit of
the crusades necessarily grew weaker as the authority of the popes
declined. It may be added, that the political system of Europe was
making its development, and the ties and springs which were to
found the equilibrium of the Christian republic had an increasing
tendency to their establishment. Each state had its plan of defence
and aggrandisement, which it followed with a constant activity; all
were employed in endeavouring to attain the degree of power, force,
and influence to which their position and the fortune of their arms
entitled them. Hence those restless ambitions, those mutual mistrusts,
that ever active spirit of rivalry, which scarcely ever permitted
sovereigns to turn their attention towards distant wars.

Whilst ambition and the desire of increasing and defending their power
detained princes in their own states, the people became attached to
their homes by the blessings and the enjoyments of a rapidly-rising
civilization. In the eleventh century, the Franks, the Normans, and
other barbarians from the north, had not quite lost the character and
habits of nomadic races, which favoured the rise and the progress of
that warlike enthusiasm which had precipitated the Crusaders upon the
East. In the sixteenth century, institutions consecrated by time, the
precepts of Christianity better understood, respect for ancestry, love
of settled property, the constantly increasing wealth of cities, with
the progress of industry and of agriculture, had changed the character
of the Franks, destroyed their partiality for a wandering life, and had
become so many ties to attach them to their country.

In the preceding century the genius of navigation had discovered
America and the passage of the Cape of Good Hope. The results of
this discovery effected a great revolution in commerce, attracted
the attention of all nations, and gave a new direction to the human
mind. All the speculations of industry, for so long a time founded
upon the crusades, were directed towards America or the East Indies.
Great empires, rich climates, offered themselves all at once to the
ambition or the cupidity of all who sought for glory, fortune, or
adventures—the wonders of a new world made men forgetful of those of
the East.

At this so memorable epoch, a general emulation arose in Europe for
the cultivation of arts and of letters. The age of Leo X. produced
masterpieces of all kinds.[87] France, Spain, and still more Italy,
turned the newly-discovered art of printing greatly to the advantage
of knowledge. The splendid geniuses of Greece and Rome were everywhere
revived. In proportion as men’s minds became enlightened, the new
career opened before them expanded. Another enthusiasm succeeded to
that of religious enterprises; and the exploits of the heroic times of
our history excited much more admiration in our romances and poets,
than they created desire in people of the world to imitate them.
Then the Epic Muse, whose voice only celebrates distant events, sang
the heroes of the holy wars; and the crusades, for the same reason
that Tasso became at liberty to adorn the recital of them with all
the wealth of his imagination,—the crusades, we say, were no longer
anything for Europe but a poetical remembrance.

One fortunate circumstance for Christendom is, that at the period when
the crusades, which had for their object the defence of Europe, drew
near to their end, the Turks began to lose some part of that military
power which they had displayed in their contests with the Christian
nations. The Ottomans had at first been, as we have already said, the
only nation that kept on foot a regular standing army, which gave it
a vast superiority over powers that it was desirous of subduing. In
the sixteenth century, most of the great states of Europe had likewise
armies which they could at any time bring against their enemies.
Discipline and military tactics had made great progress in Christendom;
artillery and marine became more perfect in the West every day, whilst
the Turks, in all that concerns the art of war, or that of navigation,
gathered no advantage from either the lessons of experience, or from
the knowledge to which time and circumstances had given birth among
their neighbours. We ought to add, that the spirit of superstition
and intolerance which the Turks associated with their wars, was very
injurious to the preservation and extent of their conquests. When
they took possession of a province, they insisted upon making their
laws, their customs, and their worship paramount. They must change
everything, they must destroy everything, in the country in which
they wished to establish themselves; they must either exterminate the
population, or reduce it to the impossibility of disturbing a foreign
domination. Thus it may be remarked, that, although several times
masters of Hungary, they retired from it after every campaign, and were
never able, amidst all their victories, to found a colony or make any
durable establishment there. The Ottoman population which had sufficed
for occupying and enslaving the Greek empire, could not people and
preserve more distant countries. It was this, above everything, which
saved Germany and Italy from the invasion of the Turks. The Ottomans
might, perhaps, have conquered the world if they had been able to
impose their manners upon it, or furnish it with inhabitants.

After the battle of Lepanto, although they had preserved the isle of
Cyprus, and dictated laws to the republic of Venice, the Turks not the
less lost the idea of their being invincible, or that all the world
must submit to their arms. It was observed that from that time most of
the leaders of Turkish armies or fleets became more timid, and felt
less assured of victory, when in the presence of an enemy. Astrologers,
who had till then beheld in the phenomena of the heavens the increase
and the glory of the Ottoman empire, saw nothing during the reign of
Soliman and following reigns but sinister auguries in the aspects of
the celestial bodies. We mention astrologers, because their predictions
have considerable influence upon the policy of the Turks. It is not
improbable that these pretended conjurers did not confine their
observations to the celestial bodies, but that they watched the manners
and the opinions of the people, and the march of events and affairs. It
is for this reason that their prophecies were found true, and that they
belong, in some sort, to history.

The spirit of conquest, however, which had so long animated the nation,
still subsisted, and sometimes fortune favoured the Ottoman banner with
victory.

Towards the end of the sixteenth century, the Turks carried war to
both the banks of the Danube and to the frontiers of Persia. Among the
Christian warriors who flew to the aid of Germany, the duke of Mercœur,
brother of the duke of Mayenne, must not be forgotten; he was followed
by a crowd of French soldiers, who had fought against Henry IV., and
who went to expiate the crimes of civil war by fighting the infidels.
The duke of Mercœur, to whom the emperor Rodolph II. gave the command
of the imperial army, gained several advantages over the Ottomans.

Whilst the war was being carried on in Hungary, the king of Persia
sent an embassy to the emperor of Germany and the princes of the West,
to persuade them to form an alliance with him against the Turks. The
Persian ambassadors repaired to the court of the sovereign pontiff,
and to those of several Christian powers, conjuring them to declare
war against the Ottomans. This embassy of the king of Persia, and the
exploits of the French on the Danube, created great uneasiness in the
Divan, and an ambassador was sent to the king of France, as the most
to be feared of the Christian princes. The letters of credit of the
Turkish envoy bore this title: “To the most glorious, magnanimous, and
greatest lord of the faith of Jesus, pacificator of the differences
which arise among Christian princes, lord of greatness, majesty, and
riches, and glorious guide of the greatest, Henry IV., emperor of
France.” The sultan of the Turks conjured the French monarch, in his
letter, to bring about a truce between the Porte and the emperor of
Germany, and to recall from Hungary the duke of Mercœur, whose valour
and skill brought victory to the banners of the Germans. Henry IV.
interrogated the Ottoman ambassador, and asked him why the Turks
dreaded the duke of Mercœur so much. The ambassador replied, that a
prophecy, credited by the Turks, declared that the sword of the French
would drive them from Europe, and overthrow their empire. Henry IV. did
not recall the duke of Mercœur: this able captain continued to beat the
Ottomans, and having covered himself with glory in the war against the
infidels, he was seized, whilst on his return to France, by a purple
fever, “which,” says Mezerai, “sent him to triumph in heaven.”

In their wars against the Christians, the Turks often found themselves
on the defensive, which was for them a sign of decline. History remarks
that at no period did their reverses cause them more alarm, or their
victories more surprise and joy. Their defeats were almost always a
signal for sedition and revolt, which the decline of power rendered
bold.

And yet the Ottoman empire still carried on war, and advanced like a
storm ready to burst. In the middle of the seventeenth century, the
isle of Chio, which had belonged to the Genoese, was added to its
maritime possessions, and the Turks directed their victorious arms
towards Candia, an important colony of the Venetians. At the same time
an Ottoman army entered Transylvania, and greatly alarmed Austria.

Pope Alexander VII., pressed by the emperor Leopold I. and by the
Venetian senate, endeavoured to form a league among the princes and
states of Christendom, and addressed the king of Poland, the king of
Spain, and more particularly the king of France, to implore their
succour against the Turks.

Louis XIV. yielded to the prayers of the sovereign pontiff, and sent
to Rome an ambassador charged to announce to his holiness, that he
entered into the confederation of the Christian princes. On the other
side, the states of the Germanic empire, which were the allies of
France, assembled at Frankfort, and engaged to raise money and troops,
promising to unite their efforts with those of the French monarch, for
the defence of Christendom.

This generous forwardness on the part of the king of France and his
allies merited, no doubt, the gratitude of Leopold; but, what is
difficult to be believed, the zeal they showed for the common cause,
and which exceeded what was first hoped for, only awakened the jealous
uneasiness of the emperor. We have even reason to think that this
uneasiness extended to the sovereign pontiff; for his holiness welcomed
the propositions of Louis XIV. very coldly; and when the resolutions of
the Germanic body reached Rome, Alexander received with indifference
news for which any other pope, say the memoirs of the time, would not
have failed to go and return solemn thanks in the church of St. Peter
or of St. John of the Lateran. The king of France could not dissemble
his surprise; and in a letter, which he caused to be written to his
ambassador, are these remarkable words: “For the rest, it is more an
affair of his holiness than ours; it will suffice for his majesty,
for his own satisfaction and his duty towards God, to have made all
the advances with respect to this league, that a king, the eldest son
of the Church, and the principal defender of religion, could do in a
danger imminent for Christendom.”

It was soon known that the Turks were making progress, and had
penetrated into Moravia. The emperor Leopold, at their approach,
quitted his capital. The pope then consented to resume the suspended
negotiations. But they were resumed with a sentiment of jealousy and
reciprocal mistrust, that left no hope of a happy result. Louis XIV.,
nevertheless, omitted nothing to prove the frankness of his intentions,
or to forward the formation of a league. It was then believed that an
enterprise against the Turks was the business of all Christendom, and
that, in this case, one Christian power alone, ought not to decide for
peace or war.

We enter into some details here, because these details have not been
hitherto generally known, and that present circumstances may give them
additional interest. We know, likewise, in the days in which we live,
we must search for examples in old remembrances, and often for our true
titles to glory likewise.

The emperor could not be reassured by the demonstrations of the French
monarch; and the rancour which he retained on account of the treaty
of Westphalia, made him forgetful of his own dangers and of those of
the Germanic body. Louis XIV. engaged to set on foot an army of twenty
thousand men, and the confederates of Germany offered as many. Leopold
feared this army on his own account. In the end, Louis satisfied
himself with furnishing six thousand soldiers, under the command of
the count de Coligny and the marquis de la Feuillade. The pope, not
to remain neuter in a war against the Mussulmans, granted the emperor
a subsidy of 70,000 florins, and the faculty of levying tenths upon
all the ecclesiastical property in the Austrian states. All the united
succours of Germany, the king of France, and the other confederate
states, formed an army of thirty thousand men. This army marched to
Hungary. When united to the troops of the emperor, they gained many
advantages over the Turks, and defeated them completely at the battle
of St. Gothard. The Ottomans solicited a suspension of arms, and the
jealous passions which had at first prevented the war being carried on
with vigour, allowed the Divan to conclude an advantageous peace.

The Ottomans, thus delivered from a formidable war, were able to direct
all their strength against Candia, which Venice, now left alone, was
not strong enough to defend. A great number of French warriors then
flew to the succour of a Christian city besieged by the infidels:
among the knights whom the love of glory led to this perilous and
distant war, history takes pleasure in naming the marquis de Fénelon,
whose care had brought up the archbishop of Cambrai, and whom his age
considered as the model of gallant gentlemen. His young son, whom he
took with him, was wounded in an affair against the Turks, and died
of his wounds. France, in the same expedition, had to lament another
hero, the young duke of Beaufort; Mascaron, who pronounced the funeral
oration of this new Maccabeus, thus describes his death: “After the
flight of all the others, yielding rather to number than to strength,
he fell upon his own trophies, and died the most glorious death that
a Christian hero could wish, sword in hand against the enemies of his
God and his king, in the sight of Europe, Asia, and Africa; and more
than all that, in the sight of God and his angels.” Louis XIV., always
considering it consistent with his glory to protect the Christian
states, sent fresh succours to Candia: four French vessels appeared
before the isle; but they arrived too late; the city of Candia, after a
siege of two years and four months, had just capitulated.

This conquest revived the courage of the Turks, and their power,
sustained by the genius of Kiouprouli, whom the Mussulmans called _the
great destroyer of the bells of impiety_, might have still rendered
themselves formidable to the Christian nations, if their policy had
not been governed by a foolish pride. Intoxicated with some trifling
successes, the Turks resumed their project of invading Germany. Towards
the end of the seventeenth century, they made a last attempt, and the
capital of Austria beheld beneath its walls an army of two hundred
thousand infidels.

Germany was exhausted by the thirty years’ war. The king of Poland,
urged by the pope to come to the succour of the Germanic empire,
hastened with his Polish cavalry to the scene of action, and revived
the courage of the Germans and the garrison of Vienna. The Turks, upon
being attacked with impetuosity, abandoned their camp, their artillery,
and their baggage. The wreck of the Ottoman army did not rally till
they reached the banks of the Raab, where they encamped around the tent
of the grand vizier, the only one that had not fallen into the hands
of the conquerors. John Sobieski entered in triumph into the city he
had saved by his courage. This happy event was celebrated throughout
Germany by public rejoicings; and, as had been done after the victory
gained by Don John of Austria, amidst the ceremonies of the Church,
these words from Scripture were repeated: “There was a man sent from
God, named John.”

The defeat of Vienna was for the Turks a signal for the greatest
reverses. The vengeance of the people and the army pursued the grand
vizier, who had conducted the war; and the sultan, Mahomet IV., fell
from the throne at the report of these sanguinary disasters, the
effects of which were felt to the very heart of the empire. The famous
treaty of Carlowitz testifies the losses that the Ottoman nation had
undergone, and the incontestable superiority of its enemies. The
decline of Turkey, as a maritime power, had commenced at the battle of
Lepanto; its decline as a military or conquering power, dates from the
defeat of Vienna. History has two things to remark in the negotiations
of Carlowitz. Hungary, which had for so long a time resisted the
Turks, weakened at length by civil discords and foreign wars, and
given up at the same time to the emperors of Germany and the sultans
of Constantinople, then lost its national independence, and became
united to the possessions of the house of Austria. Among the states
and princes who signed the treaty, the czars of Muscovy, who were
destined, at a later period, to inflict such terrible blows upon the
Ottoman empire, appeared for the first time as a power interested in
the Christian struggle against the infidels.

We have described the origin and progress of the Turks; it only remains
for us now to speak of the causes of their decline.

The Turks were only constituted to contend with a barbarous people,
like themselves, or with a degenerate people, like the Greeks.
When they met with nations that were not corrupted, and were not
deficient in bravery or patriotism, their career was checked. It is a
circumstance worthy of remark, that they were never able to make an
impression upon any of the nations of the Latin Church; the only nation
that was separated from Christendom by the conquests of the Turks was
one that had separated itself from it. When the Ottomans were no longer
able to prosecute their scheme of general invasion, all the passions
which had stimulated them to conquest only served to disturb their own
empire; which is the ordinary destiny of mere conquering nations.

The wars they prosecuted at the same time against Christian Europe and
Persia, were the principal causes of the decay of the military power
of the Turks. The efforts they made against the Persians, diverted
their forces from their expeditions against the Christians; and their
expeditions against the Christians crippled their means for the wars
in Asia. In these two kinds of war they had a very different manner
of fighting. After having for any length of time contended with the
warriors of the Oxus or Caucasus, they were incapacitated for making
war in Europe. They were never able to triumph completely over either
Persia or the Christian nations; and remained at last pressed between
two enemies, equally interested in their ruin, and equally animated by
religious passions.

The Turks, like all the hordes from the north of Asia, brought
with them the feudal government. The first thing to be done by all
nomadic nations, who established themselves in conquered countries,
was the division of the lands, with certain conditions of protection
and obedience. From this division naturally emanated feudalism. The
difference, however, which existed between the Turks and the other
barbarians who conquered the West, was, that the jealous despotism
of the sultans never allowed fiefs to become hereditary, or that
an aristocracy should grow up round it, as in the monarchies of
Christendom. Thus in the Turkish empire nothing was to be seen on
one side, but the authority of an absolute master; and on the other,
nothing but a military democracy. The Ottoman monarchy was thus built
upon that which is weakest in political societies—the will of a single
man, or that of the multitude.

The Turks have been compared to the Romans. Both nations began in
the same manner; for both were nothing but bands of brigands. What
distinguishes them in history is, that the Turks have remained the same
as they were in their origin; whilst the Romans, in their conquests,
never rejected the knowledge, the customs, or even the gods of the
people they conquered. The Turks, on the contrary, took nothing from
other nations, and made it their pride to continue barbarians.

We have said above, that hereditary aristocracy has never been
established by the side of despotism; and this is, perhaps, the
reason why the Ottoman nation has remained in a state of barbarism.
They who have studied the march of human societies know that it
is by the aristocracy that the manners and morals of a people are
formed, and that it is in the middle classes that knowledge has its
birth, and civilization begins.[88] The absence of an aristocracy in
oriental governments, not only explains to us the fragility of those
governments, but it assists us also in explaining why progress has not
been made in a country where nothing distinguished the men from each
other, where no one had sufficient influence to guide the crowd, or was
sufficiently elevated to serve as an example or model.

In consequence of the indifference of the Turks for the arts and
sciences, the labours of industry, agriculture, and navigation, were
confided to their slaves, who were their enemies. As they held in
horror everything new, or that they had not brought from Asia with
them, they were obliged to have recourse to foreigners for everything
that was invented or perfected in Europe. Thus the sources of
prosperity and power, the strength of their armies and their fleets,
were not at all in their own hands. Every one knows what the Turks have
lost by neglecting to learn or to follow the progress of the military
tactics of the Europeans. At the battle of Lepanto, disorder was
introduced into their fleet entirely from their having promised liberty
to their sailors, who were all Christians.

Some modern writers, seeking everywhere for similitudes, have compared
the janissaries to the pretorian cohorts. This comparison has nothing
exact in it: among the Romans, the empire was elective, and the
pretorians got possession of it for the purpose of putting it up
to sale. Among the Turks, the idea of choosing their prince never
suggested itself to the minds of either the people or the soldiery.
The janissaries contented themselves with disturbing the government,
and keeping it in such a state of disorder, that they could never
be dismissed, and might always remain masters. All their opposition
consisted in preventing any amelioration whatever in discipline or
military usages. The abuses and prejudices the most difficult to be
destroyed in a nation, are those which adhere to a body or a class in
which power happens to be placed. All-powerful despotism was never able
to overcome the opposition of the janissaries and spahis; and those
redoubtable corps, which had so effectively contributed to ancient
conquests, became the greatest obstacle to the making of new ones.

The Turks established in Greece had more respect for old usages and
old prejudices, than they had of love for the country they inhabited.
Masters of Stamboul, they had their eyes constantly fixed upon the
places of their origin, and appeared to be but travellers, or passing
conquerors of Europe. They preserved the manners of Asia, the laws of
Asia, the remembrances of Asia; and the West was, in their estimation,
less a country than a theatre for their exploits.

Amidst their decline, nothing was more fatal to the Turks than the
memory of their past glory; nothing was more injurious to them than
that national pride which was no longer in harmony with their fortune,
or in proportion with their strength. The illusions of a power that no
longer existed prevented them from foreseeing the obstacles they were
likely to meet with in their enterprises, or the dangers with which
they were threatened. When the Ottomans made an unsuccessful war, or
an unfavourable treaty, they never failed to lay the blame on their
leaders, whom popular vengeance devoted to death or exile; and whilst
they thus immolated victims to their vanity, their reverses became the
more irreparable, from their persisting in mistaking the true causes of
them.

Tacitus somewhere expresses the joy he felt in seeing barbarians
making war upon one another; and we experience something of this
joy when we see despotism threatened by its own institutions, and
tormented by the very instruments of its power. Another spectacle,
no less consoling to all who love humanity and justice, is to behold
this family of fierce despots, before whom the entire East trembled,
devouring itself. It is well known what victims each sultan, on
ascending the throne, was compelled to offer to the suspicious genius
of despotism. But Heaven does not permit the most sacred laws of nature
to be constantly violated with impunity; and the Ottoman dynasty, in
expiation of so many crimes against family ties, sunk at last into a
species of degradation. The Ottoman princes, brought up in subjection
and fear, lost the energy and the faculties necessary for conducting
the government of a great empire. Soliman II. only increased the evil
by decreeing a constitutional law, that no son of the sultan’s should
command armies or govern provinces. From that time none but effeminate
princes, timid and senseless men, occupied the Ottoman throne.

If the will of the prince became corrupt, it was quite sufficient to
render the corruption general. In proportion as the character of the
sultans degenerated, everything degenerated around them. A universal
apathy displaced the noisy activity of war and victory. To the passion
for conquests succeeded cupidity, ambition, selfishness, and all the
vices that signalize and complete the decline of empires. When states
rise and march on towards prosperity, there is an emulation to increase
their powers; when they decline, there is also an emulation to urge on
their destruction, and take advantage of their ruin.

The empire had always a numerous army; but that army, in which
discipline every day degenerated, was only formidable in time of peace.
A crowd of _Thimariots_, or possessors of fiefs for life, having
nothing to leave to their families, passed over the lands that were
given to them like locusts, which, in the plains where the winds have
wafted them, destroy even to the germs of the harvests. The pachas
governed the provinces as conquerors. The wealth of the people was for
them like the booty which conquerors distributed among themselves on
the day of victory. Such as could amass treasures were able to purchase
impunity. Such as had armies proclaimed their independence. Subalterns
everywhere followed the example of the leaders. In the government, as
well as in the army, everything was put up to sale, everything was
subject to pillage. Thus this empire, which had displayed such energy,
fell like a prey into the hands of all those whom fortune or the
favour of the prince called to authority; and if we may be permitted
to employ a not very elevated comparison to express the degree of
abasement of a nation, the Ottoman power no longer presented any aspect
but that of those lifeless bodies in which we can perceive no motion
but in the insects that are devouring them.

The sultans of Constantinople, while slumbering in their seraglios,
were often awakened by the thunder of popular revolts. Violences of the
army or the people were the only justice able to reach despotism. But
this justice itself was one calamity the more, and only assisted in
precipitating the general decline.

Although the successors of Othman, after the reign of Selim, were the
pontiffs of the national faith, this important dignity added nothing
to their power. The Mussulman faith, which commanded with severity
the observance of many minute practices, did not at all repress the
passions of the multitude. A religious belief which permitted a prince
to commit fratricide could be no safeguard for either the authority
or the life of the prince. A religion always ready to consecrate the
triumph of force, could find no motives in its moral code for the
condemnation of revolt, particularly when the revolt happened to be
crowned with success.[89]

But what is remarkably singular, the Turks, when they rose against a
prince of the Ottoman dynasty, preserved a profound veneration for that
dynasty. They immolated the tyrant to their vengeance, and were ready
to immolate themselves for the tyranny. Thus license, in its greatest
excesses, always respected despotism; and what carried disorder to its
highest pitch was, that despotism in its turn respected license.

The Turks lived in this state of decline as in their natural condition.
Nothing is more remarkable in history than the carelessness of a nation
in the midst of a revolution that is dragging it down to its ruin; and
this revolution with the Turks was not brought about by new ideas, but
by old ideas, not by love of liberty, but by habits of slavery. They
respected the causes of their ruin, because these causes were connected
with the history of barbarous times; and religion, by constantly
repeating to them that “he who is in the fire ought to be resigned,”
prevented them from seeking a remedy for the ills they suffered.

Among nations which incline towards destruction, in the very bosom
of corruption a certain politeness, a certain polish or elegance of
manners, may be observed. The Turks, on the contrary, had a brutal
and savage corruption, and their empire grew old without the nation’s
losing anything of that fierceness of character, of that proud
roughness, which belong to the infancy of society.

We shall be asked why Christendom did not take advantage of this
decline of the Turks to drive them back again into Asia. We have seen
in this history, that the nations of Christian Europe were never able
to combine and agree for the defence of Constantinople, when it was
attacked by the Turks; and they showed no more inclination to combine
to deliver it after it was taken. We may add that the less redoubtable
the Turks became, the fewer were the efforts made to conquer them.
They inspired, besides, no jealousy in the commercial nations of
Christendom. It was in vain that fortune placed them between the East
and the West; that she rendered them masters of the Archipelago, of the
coasts of Africa, of the ports of the Black Sea and the Red Sea: their
finest provinces were deserts, their cities were abandoned. Everything
perished in the hands of an indolent and unpolished people. The Turks
were spared, because they made no use of their advantages; and because
they were, to employ an expression of Montesquieu’s, the men the most
fit to hold great empires carelessly.

Before we terminate this rapid sketch of the Turkish empire in the
seventeenth century, we beg to be allowed to add some reflections which
circumstances may cause to be appreciated. Nothing was more monstrous
than the presence, upon the same territory, of two nations and two
religions that hated and cursed each other reciprocally. Spain had
presented a similar spectacle; but the energy and the magnanimous
constancy of the Spaniards triumphed over an adverse people and an
adverse religion; and at the very time at which the Turks established
themselves in Greece, the Moors, carrying with them their foreign
worship, abandoned their conquests and returned to Africa, from whence
they came. The Greeks, after the invasion of the Ottomans, neither
showed the same energy nor the same courage; although their patriotism
ought to have been constantly animated by the soil they trod on, and by
their very name, of which the conqueror had not been able to deprive
them.

Nevertheless, amidst their abasement and their misery, they were still
able to place their hope in the ascendancy of religious ideas, and in
the wish for civilization, which acted as a tie between all Christian
societies. Whilst the manners and the worship of Islamism rendered the
Turks foreign and even odious to Christendom, the religion of Christ
and the remembrances of history placed the Greeks in relation with the
other nations of Europe.

In proportion as the knowledge derived from antiquity made progress
among the Franks, Greece became for them a sacred country. The language
of Plato and Demosthenes, in which the charms of liberty had been
celebrated with so much eloquence, became more dear to them than their
own maternal tongue. The poetical sites of Greece, which the love of
letters rendered so familiar to the studious class, were for us like
places in which we had passed our infancy. Europe had not a scholar in
whom the city of Aristotle, that of Lycurgus, or that of Epaminondas,
did not inspire something resembling the sentiments we feel for our
own country. If the Greeks were degenerated; if they viewed with
indifference the ruins of their country, ancient Greece still lived for
every enlightened man, and was ever present, wherever a taste for the
arts or a love of learning existed.

The warmer that the interest for the Greeks became, the more barbarous
the Turks appeared. The Ottoman nation came and established itself in
the richest countries of Europe, and remained in sight of all European
people, without becoming acquainted with their languages, their laws,
or their policy; like those troops of wild animals which sometimes
stop in the neighbourhood of the dwellings of man, ignorant of that
which is going on in these places, and having no means to seize their
prey or defend themselves, but their activity, their natural strength,
and the means which a gross instinct gives them. This state of things
was opposed both to the laws of society and the laws of nature, which
do not permit men or nations to live together and in the same place,
except when they possess similar qualities, and are able to employ
their faculties in common. The Turks may have been protected, at first
by the fortune of their own arms, and afterwards by the policy of
certain cabinets; but what real support could they have in the West,
when they were repulsed by the manners, feelings, and opinions of the
European nations, to whom they became every day more foreign?

On one side, the antipathy entertained for a barbarous people; on the
other, the relations which united nations civilized by Christianity,
were likely, sooner or later, to revive that spirit of fraternity which
produced the crusades; and God has willed that this spirit, from which
the holy wars were born, should manifest itself in the same century
which had for a long time refused to acknowledge the effects or to
admire the prodigies of them.

At the moment in which we are finishing this history, the Greeks have
thrown forth a cry of alarm, and this cry has resounded throughout
the Christian world. Is the moment of their deliverance arrived? When
we examine the present state of Europe, we find a much greater force
than would be necessary to conquer Byzantium; but on the other side,
the diversity of interests and opinions will not permit the Christian
republic to unite for this great enterprise. We have seen that the
Turks really possess nothing but the soil of their vast empire; the
riches that are there produced belong to the nations of Christendom,
and these nations are for the Turkish provinces, which they cultivate
to their profit, that which an active and industrious farmer is for the
fields he ploughs and reaps. Add to this, that most of the Christian
powers appear to fear that the displacing of a great empire may break
the ties of the European confederation; they do not, as formerly,
dread the strength of the Ottomans, but the difficulties and divisions
that the conquest would produce. That which may add to their fears is
that impatience for change, that ardent passion for novelty, which
is spread all at once among the nations like a contagious fever;
whilst the Greeks are imploring Europe for their liberty, restless and
dissatisfied spirits look to the East for I do not know what signal
for a revolution in Europe. Thus Christendom, divided by its various
interests, tormented by a thousand different passions, and fearing for
its own repose, awaits with anxiety the events that are preparing,
and appears to recoil from victories which the superiority of her
intelligence and her armies hold out to her.

What will be the issue of all the warlike demonstrations and all
the pacific negotiations of which fame informs us every day? There
is no doubt the cross will again arise in the East, and the fate of
Christians residing there will receive some amelioration; but are we
arrived at the moment which is to render Europe entirely Christian?
Will the Ottoman empire, whose weakness now appears so great, yield
to the power of its enemies, or will it hasten its own ruin? Will
Greece, so long enslaved, resume that rank among nations from which she
formerly descended so ingloriously, or will she fall into the hands
of her liberators? A thousand other questions present themselves to
the mind; but we will not forestall events; above all, we will avoid
multiplying conjectures and hypotheses, or producing here the brilliant
reveries of philosophers and poets, which the severity of history
rejects. When we set a high value upon truth, and have sought it for a
length of time in all that the remembrances of the past contain that is
most positive, we learn to speak of the future with much circumspection
and reserve.

It may be thought that we have dwelt too long upon the Ottoman empire;
but the origin of that empire, its progress and its decline, are
connected with all the events we have had to describe. The sketch
we have traced of it may have been sometimes serviceable in making
our readers acquainted with the spirit and the character of the wars
against the infidels; and is this view our labour has not been useless.

At the period we have now gained, the passions which had given birth to
the prodigies of the crusades had become speculative opinions, which
occupied the attention of writers rather than that of kings or nations.
Thus the holy wars, with their causes and effects, became the objects
of the discussions of doctors and philosophers. We may remember the
opinion of Luther; and although he had partly disavowed or retracted
his first opinion upon the war against the Turks, most of his partisans
continued to evince a great aversion for the crusades.

The minister Jurieu goes much further than Luther. That ardent apostle
of the Reformation, far from thinking that war ought to be made against
the Mussulmans, did not hesitate to consider the Turks as auxiliaries
of the Protestants, and said that the fierce sectaries of Mahomet were
sent to “labour with the Reformers in the great work of God,” which was
the ruin of the papal empire. After the raising of the last siege of
Vienna, in 1683, and the revocation of the edict of Nantes, the same
Jurieu was afflicted at the disgrace of the Reformers and the defeat of
the Turks; adding, at the same time, “that God had only abased them, in
order to raise them together again, and make them the instruments of
his vengeance against the popes.” Such is the excess of blindness to
which the spirit of party or sect has power to carry us, when misled by
hatred, and irritated by persecution.

Other writers, however, celebrated for their genius, and who also
were connected with the Reformation, maintained that wars against the
infidels ought to be carried on: they deplored the indifference of
Christendom, and the wars that were breaking out daily among Christian
nations, whilst they left in peace a people, a foe to all other
peoples. Chancellor Bacon, in his dialogue _de bello sacro_, employs
all his logic to prove that the Turks are excluded from the law of
nations. He invokes, by turns, natural right, the rights of nations,
and divine right, against the barbarians, to whom he refuses the name
of a people, and maintains that war should be carried on against them
as against pirates, anthropophagi, or wild animals. The illustrious
chancellor quotes, in support of his opinion, maxims from Aristotle,
maxims from the Bible, with examples from history, and even from fable.
His manner of reasoning savours a little of the policy and philosophy
of the sixteenth century, and we do not feel ourselves called upon to
repeat arguments, of which many would not be of a nature to convince
minds of the present century.

We prefer developing some of the ideas of Leibnitz, who, in order
to revive the spirit of distant expeditions, addressed himself to
the ambition of princes, and whose political views have received a
memorable application in modern times. At the moment in which Louis
XIV. was preparing to carry his arms into the Low Countries, the
German philosopher sent him a long memorial, to persuade him to renew
the expedition of St. Louis into Egypt. The conquest of that rich
country, which Leibnitz calls the Holland of the East, would favour the
triumph and the propagation of the faith; it would procure for the Most
Christian king the renown of Alexander, and for the French monarchy
vast means of power and prosperity. After the occupation of Alexandria
and Cairo, fortune would offer the conquerors some happy opportunity
for restoring the empire of the East; the Ottoman power, attacked by
the Poles and the Germans, and troubled by internal divisions, was
ready to sink into ruin; Muscovy and Persia were already preparing to
take advantage of its fall; if France put forth her strength, nothing
would be more easy than to gather together again the immense heritage
of Constantine, to dominate over the Mediterranean, to extend her
empire over the Red Sea, over the Sea of Ethiopia, over the Persian
Gulf, and obtain possession of the commerce of India; everything the
most brilliant in the glory and grandeur of empires then presented
itself to the imagination of Leibnitz; and this exalted genius, dazzled
by his own idea, and allying his policy with the prejudices of his
age, could see nothing greater than the conquest of Egypt, _but the
discovery of the philosopher’s stone_: he beheld already, in a shortly
distant futurity, the Christian religion flourishing again in Asia, the
empire and the commerce of the East and the West divided between the
king of France and the house of Austria and Spain, the world rendered
peaceful, and governed by these two conquering powers!

After having developed the advantages of the vast enterprise he
proposed, Leibnitz neglected none of the means that would be likely
to secure the success or facilitate the execution of it. It was in
this part of his memorial that he showed all the superiority of his
genius; and when we read the account of the last war of the French
in Egypt, we cannot but feel persuaded that Buonaparte was well
acquainted with the plan of campaign addressed by Leibnitz to Louis
XIV. But certainly this gigantic enterprise, whose result was likely to
be more brilliant than either solid or durable, was less suited to a
monarch guided in his policy by the sentiments of real greatness, than
to the modern hero, always enamoured of an adventurous and romantic
glory. Nevertheless, the ideas of Leibnitz, although not favourably
received by the cabinet of Versailles, did not fail to produce a lively
impression upon the statesmen of the seventeenth century. It is known
likewise, that the king of France had already thought seriously of
a war against the Turks; and we have reason to believe that Boileau
alluded to all these projects of distant conquests, when he said in his
epistle to the king:

Je t’attends dans six mois aux bords de l’Hellespont.[90]

The eloquence, or even the flattery of authors, could not induce
princes to take up arms against the infidels; and the Crusaders
finished, as they began, with pilgrimages. Among the celebrated
pilgrims who repaired to the East after the holy wars, one of the most
remarkable was Ignatius Loyola. He visited the holy places twice, and,
like St. Jerome, would have ended his days in Palestine, if the Latin
priests had not advised him to return into Europe, where he established
the order of the Jesuits. As was the case before the crusades, princes
mixed with the crowd of Christians who went to the Holy Land. Frederick
III., before he ascended the imperial throne, went on a pilgrimage to
the holy city. We still possess an account of the voyages which were
made successively into Palestine by a prince of Radziwil, a duke of
Bavaria, a duke of Austria, and three electors of Saxony, among whom
was he who was the protector of Luther.

Pilgrims from the West were no longer received at Jerusalem, as in
the early times, by the Knights of St. John, but by the Latin fathers
of the order of St. Francis of Assisi, who devoted themselves to the
guardianship of the holy sepulchre. Preserving the hospitable manners
of ancient times, the guardian father himself washed the feet of
travellers, and furnished them with the necessary assistance for their
pilgrimage. Pilgrims embarked at Venice, where vessels were always
ready to transport them to the coast of Syria. People could obtain
all the benefits attached to the pilgrimage of the Holy Land, without
quitting their homes; either by commissioning pious men who were sent
beyond the seas, or cenobites who resided on the spot.

The greater part of the sovereigns of Christendom, after the example
of Charlemagne, thought it consistent with their glory, not only to
deliver, but to protect the city of Jesus Christ from the outrages of
the Mussulmans. The capitulations of Francis I., renewed by most of his
successors, contain[91] several conditions which contribute to secure
peace to the Christians, with the free exercise of their religion in
the East. In the reign of Henry IV., Deshayes, the ambassador from
France to Constantinople, went to visit the faithful at Jerusalem, and
conveyed to them the consolations of a charity worthy of royalty. The
count of Nointel, who represented Louis XIV. at the court of the sultan
of Turkey, also went into the Holy Land; and Jerusalem received in
triumph the envoy of the powerful monarch, whose credit and renown were
employed to protect the Christians beyond the seas.

Most of the princes of Christendom every year sent their tributes to
the holy city; and in solemn ceremonies, the church of the Resurrection
displayed the treasures offered by the kings of the West. The guardians
of the holy places, who entertained and took charge of pilgrims,
possessed nothing on earth; but the gifts of the faithful were for them
like the manna of the desert, sent every day from heaven. By a species
of miracle constantly renewed, the holy monuments of the Christian
religion, for a long time defended by the armies of the West, having
no longer any defence but religious remembrances, preserved themselves
amidst the barbarous sectaries of Islamism: the security enjoyed by
the city of Jerusalem made its deliverance less thought of. That which
produced the spirit of the crusades in the eleventh century was, above
all other causes, the persecution directed against pilgrims, and the
state of misery in which the Christians of the East existed. When they
ceased to be persecuted, and had fewer miseries to endure, lamentable
accounts no longer awakened the pity and indignation of the western
nations; and Christendom satisfied itself with addressing prayers to
God for the preservation of peace in the places he had sanctified by
his miracles. There was then a spirit of resignation[92] which took
place of the enthusiasm of the crusades; the city of David and of
Godfrey became confounded in the minds of Christians with the heavenly
Jerusalem, and as sacred orators said, “it was necessary to pass
through Heaven to arrive at the Holy Land,” it was of no use appealing
to the bravery of warriors, but to the devotion and charity of the
faithful.

BOOK XVIII.

REFLECTIONS UPON THE STATE OF EUROPE, UPON THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF
SOCIETY, AND UPON THE PROGRESS Of NAVIGATION, INDUSTRY, ARTS, AND
GENERAL KNOWLEDGE, DURING AND AFTER THE CRUSADES.

A.D. 1571-1685.

WE have made known the origin, the spirit, and the character of the
crusades; it is now our task to show their influence on the state
of society. Before giving our opinion upon the results of the holy
wars, it has appeared to us desirable to lay before our readers, in
a few words, the judgments that others have passed upon them. In
the seventeenth century, so abounding in men of genius, the heroic
bravery of the Crusaders was admired, their reverses were deplored,
and, without a question as to the good or evil which these distant
expeditions had brought about, the pious motives which had made the
warriors of the West take arms were respected. The eighteenth century,
which had adopted all the opinions of the Reformation, and exaggerated
them,—the eighteenth century did not spare the crusades, and did
not fail to accuse the ignorance, barbarity, and fanaticism of our
ancestors as the causes of them.[93]Voltaire published a history of
the crusades, in 1753; the subject he had chosen was at that time so
low in public opinion, and he himself cast so much ridicule upon the
events he described, that his book created no curiosity, and found no
readers. Nothing can equal the violence with which the authors of the
_Encyclopédie_, a short time afterwards, surpassed even the acerbity
of Voltaire. This manner of judging the crusades became so general,
that the panegyrists of St. Louis allowed themselves to be drawn into
it, and several among them, in their discourses, were scarcely inclined
to pardon the pious monarch for his exploits and his misfortunes in
Egypt and before Tunis.

A philosophy, however, enlightened by the spirit of research and
analysis, traced events to their causes, studied their effects, and,
from holding truth as the only object worthy of inquiry, neglected
declamation and despised satire. The judicious Robertson, in his
introduction to the History of Charles V., gave it as his opinion,
that the crusades had favoured the progress of liberty and the
development of the human mind. Whether this perception flattered some
of the opinions of the time, or whether it exercised over the public
the natural ascendancy of truth, it met with a sufficient number of
partisans; and from that time the expeditions of the Crusaders into the
East have been judged with less severity.

A few years ago the Institute of France proposed a question, by which
they invited the learned to point out all the advantages society
had derived from the crusades; and if we may judge by the memorials
which obtained the prize in this learned contest,[94] the holy wars
brought more benefits for posterity in their train, than they produced
calamities for the generations contemporary with them. Thus, opinions
upon the crusades had changed several times in less than two centuries;
a great lesson for those who pronounce with so much assurance upon the
revolutions which we have seen begin, but which we shall not see end;
when there is so much difficulty in judging of revolutions long ago
accomplished, and whose results are all before our eyes!

Perhaps we are arrived at the favourable moment for appreciating with
some truth the influence of the crusades, and the opinions of those who
have reflected upon them before us: we may say, that the revolutions
of the present age are for us a torch which enlightens the history of
past times; none of the lessons which are afforded by great political
concussions have been wanting for the present generation, and on that
account, no doubt, our age will some day merit the title of the age of
enlightenment.

We may safely say, that that which the crusades were deficient in, in
order to have found more indulgent judges, was success; let us suppose
for a moment that the crusades had succeeded, as they who undertook
them hoped they would, and let us see, in that case, what would
have been their results. Egypt, Syria, and Greece would have become
Christian colonies; the nations of the East and the West would have
pursued together the great march of civilization; the languages of
the Franks would have penetrated to the extremes of Asia; the Barbary
coast, now inhabited by pirates, would have received the morals and
the laws of Europe; and the interior of Africa would not have been
for a long time a land impenetrable to the relations of commerce and
the researches of learned men and travellers. In order to judge what
nations under the same laws and the same religion would have gained
by this union, we have but to remember the state of the Roman world
under the successors of Augustus, forming, as it were, one people,
living under the same law, speaking the same language. All the seas
were free, and the most distant provinces communicated with each other
by easy and commodious routes; cities exchanged the objects of their
arts and their industry, climates their various productions, nations
their knowledge. If the crusades had subdued the East to Christianity,
it is fair to believe that this grand spectacle, which the human race
had only once beheld, would have been repeated in modern times, and
opinions would not now be divided as to the advantages of the holy
wars. Unfortunately, the Crusaders were unable to extend or preserve
their conquests. The results of the crusades are thus more difficult to
seize, and the good attributed to them does not strike all minds with
equal force.

Among the results of the crusades, impartial history cannot pass over
the evils they caused humanity to undergo; but these evils were felt
in the time itself of the holy wars; and the faithful picture of that
period has been quite sufficient to make us acquainted with them.
As to the good the crusades produced, it has been like the germ,
which remains a long time concealed in the earth, and develops itself
slowly. After the account of each crusade, our readers will remember
that, in a short summary, we have pointed out the immediate results
of it. Now we will embrace all the epochs of the Eastern expeditions
in a general review. When the ages to which the events of which we
have spoken belonged become better known, the spirit of these events
and their consequences will be better understood and better judged
of: we are about to exhibit societies such as they were in the middle
ages, and the progress they have made towards civilization; leaving to
enlightened readers the care of appreciating that which belongs to the
crusades.

We will in the first place examine the state of the different powers of
Europe, and will begin with France.

When we remember the state of weakness and decay in which the
commencement of the twelfth century found the French monarchy, we
are astonished at the degree of prosperity and splendour it attained
in subsequent ages. Skilful negotiations, successful wars, useful
alliances, the decay of the feudal system, and the progressive
enfranchisement of the commons, favoured the dynasty of the Capets,
in the aggrandizement of their states, and in the increase of their
authority. Several centuries were employed in consummating this great
work of fortune and policy; and the more slowly that this revolution
was operated, the more durable proved its effects. One plan of conduct,
followed up by all the princes of one same family, and the success it
obtained in the prosperity and aggrandizement of the kingdom, and the
glory and independence of the nation, at the present day, merit all
the attention of history. Frenchmen cannot help feeling both gratitude
and admiration when they reflect that the union of so many rich
provinces—that this French monarchy, which has grown from age to age,
and which finished by extending from the Rhine to the Pyrenees; that
this beautiful France, in a word, such as we see it, is the work of the
august family which governs it at the present day.[95]

The policy of our kings was no doubt seconded by the great events of
the crusades; it was natural that the nation which took the greatest
share in these events should profit more than others by it, in the
increase of its power and the amelioration of its social condition.
The glory which the French arms acquired beyond the seas gave a new
lustre to the monarchy; royal authority profited equally by the
exploits and the reverses of the numerous warriors whom the holy wars
attracted into Asia; the absence, the death, or the ruin of the great
vassals permitted royalty to rise from the bosom of feudal anarchy, and
establish order in the kingdom.

More than a century before the first crusade, the barons and prelates
had ceased to meet in general assembly to regulate the forms of
justice, and lend to the acts of royal authority the support of
their political influence. At the second crusade, there were several
assemblies of the great men of the kingdom, in which preparations
for the expedition, and measures for the maintenance of public order
and the execution of the laws during the absence of Louis VII., were
deliberated upon. In these meetings, which were very numerous, the
French might trace at least a faint image of those assemblies, so
celebrated under the first races, in which the kings and their subjects
deliberated together upon the means of securing the independence of the
nation and the safety of the throne.

Thus the crusades aided the kings of France in resuming their
legislative power, and the most enlightened part of the nation, in
recovering those ancient prerogatives which they had exercised under
the children of Clovis and Charlemagne.

It may be remembered, that after the accession of Hugh Capet, the great
vassals not only did no longer assemble around their prince, but had
entirely separated their cause from that of the crown; several even
scarcely acknowledged a king of France, and covering their opposition
with a pious pretext, they, in their public acts, designated the
year of the reign of Jesus Christ, instead of that of the king. This
opposition, which lasted more than a century, at last gave way to
other feelings, when they saw the French monarchs at the head of those
expeditions which attracted the attention of all Christendom, and in
which the cause of Jesus Christ himself, as well as of all Christian
nations, seemed interested. In order to perceive clearly what the kings
of France owed to the holy wars, and what in particular they gained by
taking part in them, it would suffice to compare Philip I., shut up in
his palace, in a melancholy manner, during the Council of Clermont,
excommunicated by Urban, condemned by the bishops, and abandoned by his
nobles, with Philip Augustus, in the first place conqueror of Saladin
in Syria, and afterwards triumphant at Beauvines, over the enemies
of his kingdom; or with Louis IX., surrounded in his reverses by a
faithful nobility, ever respected by the clergy and the people, revered
as the firmest support of the Church, and proclaimed by his own age the
arbiter of Europe.

We will speak hereafter of the changes which were then effected in the
different classes of society; we will confine ourselves here to saying
that the crusades were the signal for a new order of things in France,
and that this new order of things cast solid foundations during the
holy wars.

If royalty in France was weak at the period of the first crusade, in
England it was strong and powerful; royalty and feudalism oppressed
England with all the weight of the conquests of William; but an
authority founded upon victory, and sustained by violence, created at
an early period in men’s minds a feeling of opposition, which time
and circumstances were destined to develop. Military despotism had
been able to impose silence upon opinions; but it had not entirely
changed the manners of the English, or destroyed their attachment to
old customs. Passions suppressed by the sword broke out with greater
violence in the end.

An all-powerful monarchy exhibited a tendency to decline, and in
England was seen the contrary of that which had been seen in France.
Liberty made advances at the expense of royal authority. It does
not enter into our plan to explain in detail the causes of this
revolution. Several English monarchs allowed themselves to be led away
by an imprudent and passionate policy, which threw them into fatal
extravagances; their excesses, their violences, and particularly the
crimes of John Lack-land, alienated the minds of their subjects, and
united the whole nation in one feeling of resistance to absolute power.
Another cause of decline not less remarkable, and to which history
has not sufficiently drawn attention, was the ambition of the English
princes, which inspired them with the senseless project of conquering
the kingdom of France. The ruinous wars which they maintained against
an enemy they could not subdue, placed them at the discretion of the
barons and the English people, who furnished them with subsidies and
fought under their banners.

The crusades had, perhaps, less influence upon the civilization of
England than upon that of several other states of Europe. They might,
however, concur with many circumstances of that period in effecting the
changes which the English monarchy underwent.

Richard Cœur de Lion was more anxious to acquire the renown of a great
captain than the reputation of a great king; the glory of arms made him
forget the cares of his kingdom. It may be remembered that before his
departure he sold the charges, the prerogatives, and the domains of the
crown; he would have sold, as he himself said, the city of London, if
he could have found a purchaser; his reverses and his captivity ruined
his people, and his long absence kept up the spirit of faction among
his nobles, and more especially in his own family.

The English barons were several times desirous of going into the East,
against the will of the king; and the idea of opposing a monarch they
did not love, often added to their impatience to embark for Palestine.
Kings likewise took advantage of the opinions of their times, and
engaged themselves to set out for the crusades, with the sole view of
obtaining subsidies, which they employed in other enterprises. These
means, too often employed, drew contempt upon the policy of princes,
and only served to increase the public mistrust.

But that which completed the overthrow of the foundations of an
absolute monarchy in England, was the violent enterprises of the popes
against the English kings; enterprises which the spirit of religious
wars favoured. In the league of the barons against Henry III., the
rebels wore a cross, as in the wars beyond the seas; and the priests
promised the palms of martyrdom to those who should die in the cause
of liberty. One very curious circumstance is, that the head of the
league formed for the independence of the English nation, was a French
gentleman, the son of that count de Montfort so renowned[96] in the
crusade against the Albigeois.

But the long efforts of England to obtain liberty deserve so much the
more to fix the attention of history, from their having, in the end,
attained a positive and durable result. So many other nations, after
having contended for a long time, sometimes against license, sometimes
against tyranny, have only met with misery, shame, and slavery. If the
English revolution produced in the end salutary effects, it was because
all classes of society concurred together in it; because it was made
in the interests of all, according to the character and the manners of
the nation, and according to the spirit of Christianity, which then
presided over all which ought to last among men. Unanimity of opinions
and sentiments, the accordance of manners and laws, of policy and
religion, founded from that time that public spirit of which England
still offers us the model; and this public spirit became in the end the
most firm support and the most sure safeguard of liberty.

Whilst England was wresting liberty from its kings, and France was
requiring hers back again of royalty, Germany presented another
spectacle; the German empire, which had thrown out great splendour up
to the eleventh century, declined rapidly during the crusades.

The emperors, in order to resist the great vassals, granted several
advantages to the clergy, and bestowed privileges upon the cities. The
clergy employed these advantages in favour of the popes, who attacked
the imperial power; the cities profited by the concessions which were
made to found their independence. All the efforts of the emperors had
proved unable to prevent the crown continuing elective, whilst the
great fiefs became hereditary. Thus the heads of the empire depended
for their election upon the princes and nobles whom they themselves had
freed from all dependence. In the competition of the pretenders to the
throne, in a competition which was almost always decided by fortune,
intrigue, or victory, it may easily be supposed that ambition was
often more successful than moderation and virtue. Among the princes who
ascended the imperial throne, many were men of great character; but
their active and restless genius led them into adventurous and gigantic
enterprises, which exhausted their strength and hastened the decline of
the empire.

The memories of ancient Rome and of the power of the Cæsars were always
present to their imagination. One of the greatest errors of their
policy was turning their views towards Italy; they encountered on their
way thither the popes, who declared a war of extermination against
them; two families of emperors succumbed beneath the thunders of Rome;
they were never able to reign over Italy, and whilst they exhausted
themselves in vain efforts to establish their domination there, they
completed the loss of their influence in Germany.

It is a consoling remark for humanity, that most of the conquerors of
the middle ages weakened themselves by their undertakings, victory
itself only serving to bring about the ruin of their power. The kings
of France of this period evinced, perhaps, less talent and genius than
the emperors of Germany; but their policy was wiser and more fortunate;
they confined themselves to conquering their own kingdom; their
conquests only tended to unite the scattered members of a large family;
and their authority became more popular in proportion with their being
considered as a natural tie between the French of all the provinces.

The glory which the emperors of Germany acquired by their conquests
was but a personal glory, and did not at all interest the German
people. This manifestation of their power had nothing in common with
the nations of which they were the head. As soon as this power was no
longer a bond or a support for the people, they separated themselves
from it, and every one sought his safety or his aggrandizement in his
own strength.

A state of things arose from this which was, perhaps, more fatal to
Germany than the absolute authority of the emperors; upon the ruins of
the imperial grandeur arose a crowd of states, opposed to each other by
diversity of laws and the spirit of rivalry. All those ecclesiastical
and secular principalities in which the spirit of monarchy prevailed;
those cities in which the spirit of liberty fermented; that nobility
animated by the pretensions of aristocracy, could not possibly have the
same interests or the same policy to direct their efforts towards one
common and salutary aim.

The popes, after having weakened the power of the emperors, wished to
dispose of the broken sceptre of Charlemagne, and offered it to all
who appeared likely to promote their scheme of vengeance. A crowd of
princes then started up as pretenders to the empire thus held out by
the popes, and the greater the number of these, the more rapidly the
empire declined. Amidst civil discords, Germany completed the loss of
its political unity, and at last its religious unity.

In order to judge to what a degree it was difficult to put in
motion that enormous mass called the German confederation, it is
only necessary to contemplate, in the history of the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries, those numerous diets which assembled to deliberate
upon the war against the Turks, in which the presence of imminent peril
even was never able to produce one energetic decision for the safety of
Germany.

The popes sometimes made use of the pretext of the crusades to drive
the emperors to a distance, and to precipitate them into disastrous
expeditions; thus the enthusiasm for the holy wars, which had a
tendency to establish union among Christian nations, had no power to
bring together the members of the German nation, and only served to
keep up trouble and disorder in the bosom of the empire. We must,
however, repeat here what has been read in this history; it was under
the auspices and by the influence of the court of Rome, when occupied
seriously by a crusade, that the family of Rodolph of Hapsburg arose,
a family whose power restored the empire to something of its ancient
splendour, and saved Europe from the invasion of the Turks.

We have likewise to add that, at the period of the crusades, Germany
augmented its territories and its population. The expeditions against
the infidels of the East gave birth to the idea of attacking the pagans
and idolaters, whose hordes inhabited the banks of the Vistula and
the coasts of the Baltic. These races, when subdued by the Crusaders,
entered into the Christian republic, and formed part of the German
confederation. At the aspect of the cross, such cities as Dantzic,
Thorn, Elbing, Kœnigsberg, &c., sprang up from the bosom of forests and
deserts. Finland, Lithuania, Pomerania, and Silesia became flourishing
provinces; new nations arose, new states were formed, and, to complete
these prodigies, the arms of the Crusaders marked the spot in which
a monarchy was to appear that did not exist in the middle ages, but
which the present age has seen all at once take its place in the rank
of the great powers of Europe. At the end of the thirteenth century,
the provinces from which the Prussian monarchy derives both its name
and its origin, were separated from Christendom by idolatry and savage
manners; the conquest and the civilization of these provinces were the
work of the holy wars.

If from Germany we pass into Italy, we there meet with other forms of
government, and other revolutions.

When the last columns of the Roman empire crumbled away, Italy was
covered with ruins. The Huns, the Franks, the Vandals, the Goths, the
Germans, and the Lombards, held over this beautiful country, in turns,
the scourge of their domination, and all left behind them traces of
their manners, their legislation, and their character.

In the tenth century, the emperors of Constantinople being unable any
longer to retain Italy, other powers arose, some from conquests, others
by good fortune, and others from circumstances which history has much
difficulty in indicating. The influence of the popes sometimes defended
the independence of Italy against the invasions and the yoke of the
German emperors; but the struggle was so long, and the war between
the two powers exhibited so many vicissitudes, that it only served to
perpetuate trouble and discord; during several centuries, the Guelphs
and the Ghibellines desolated Italy without defending it.

In every nation of Europe there was then a power, or rather a
preponderating authority, which was as a rallying-point, or centre,
around which society formed and united its forces to defend its
political existence.

Italy had not, like France and other countries, this precious means
of conservation. Nothing proves better the dissolution in which this
rich country was plunged, than the manner by which it endeavoured to
establish its independence in the middle ages. That division into many
states, that parcelling out of territory, that numerous population
split into a thousand fractions, all announced the absence of any tie,
of any common centre. Italy comprised many nations; twenty republics
had each their own laws, their own interests, and their own history.
Those perpetual wars between the citizens of the same cities; those
animosities between republic and republic; that necessity of the
inhabitants for calling in strangers in their internal quarrels; those
mistrusts which bore harder upon the citizens than upon the stipendiary
adventurers, tended to efface the true sentiment of patriotism, and at
length caused even the name of the Italian nation to be forgotten.

The feudal system was abolished earlier in Italy than elsewhere; but
with feudalism departed the ancient honour of brave knights, and the
virtues of chivalry. In republics defended by mercenaries, bravery, and
all the generous sentiments that accompany it, ceased to be esteemed.
Violent passions had no longer any check, either in the laws or in the
opinions of men; it was at this unhappy period that those hatreds and
vengeances displayed themselves which appear so improbable to us in
our tragedies; no spectacle can be more afflicting than that of Italy
in the fourteenth century; and we may safely say that Dante had but to
look around him to find the model for his Hell.

Society, always ready to split to pieces, appeared to have no other
motive but the fury of parties, no other principle of life but discord
and civil war; there was no other guarantee against license but
tyranny; or against tyranny, but the despair of factions, and the
poniard of conspirators. As the strength of most of the little states
which covered Italy was seldom equal to their ambition; and as princes
and citizens, by the same reason that they were weak, wanted both
moderation and courage; they sought their elevation or their safety
in all the means that treachery and perfidy could suggest. Plots,
political stratagems, odious crimes, everything appeared right to them;
everything seemed properly available that could sustain their quarrels,
and satisfy their ambition or their jealousy. At length, all morality
disappeared; and it was then that school of policy was formed, which
is to be found in the lessons, or rather in the satire, of Machiavel’s
book.

It is said that the Italians were the first to form the idea of what
publicists call the balance of power. We do not think that Italy merits
such a glory; that which is understood by the balance of power is not
an invention: it is nothing but the natural resource of the weakness
which seeks a support. If we follow the progress of events, we shall
find that this system, so long boasted, became fatal to Italy, by
calling thither conquerors, who made it, even up to our own days, the
theatre of most sanguinary wars.

At the period of the crusades, the cities of Lombardy, and the
republics of Genoa, Pisa, and Venice, had attained great prosperity;
and that which gave them this prosperity was the commerce of the East,
which Italy carried on before the crusades, and persevered in, with all
the advantages accruing from the expeditions beyond the seas.

But these republics, which contended for the empire of the sea, and
only occupied a little corner of land upon the Mediterranean,—which
had their eyes constantly fixed upon Syria, Egypt, and Greece,—which
left to strangers the care of defending their territories, and only
armed their citizens for the defence of their commerce,—these
mercantile republics were much better calculated to enrich Italy than
to keep up the sentiment of a true independence among the Italian
nations.

We cannot, however, refrain from admiring that republic of Venice,
whose power everywhere preceded the arms of the Crusaders, and which
the nations of the middle ages looked upon as the queen of the East.
The decline of this great republic did not begin before the period at
which the progress of navigation, that it had so much contributed to,
at length opened the route to India, and led to the discovery of a new
world. Most of the other republics of Italy neither displayed the same
splendour nor enjoyed the same duration; many among them—particularly
those in which democracy prevailed—had disappeared at the end of the
crusades, in the chaos and tumult of discords and civil wars. In their
place arose dukes and princes, who substituted the intrigues of policy
for popular passions, and sometimes made it their ambition to favour
the revival of arts and letters, the true glory of Italy.

The kingdom of Naples and Sicily, situated at the extremity of Italy,
was for the Crusaders the road to Greece and the East. The riches of
this country, which appeared never to have any guardians,—a territory
which its inhabitants were never able to defend, must have often
tempted the cupidity and the ambition of the princes and even of the
knights who went to seek their fortunes in Asia. The history of this
fine country is mixed up during two centuries with that of the holy
wars, the crusades often furnishing a pretext or an opportunity for the
conquest of it. The wars undertaken for the kingdom of Naples,—those
wars which produced more monstrous crimes than glorious exploits,
more revolts than battles, completed the corruption of the Neapolitan
character, in which has always been remarked, on the one part, an
inclination to shake off the yoke of present domination, and, on the
other, an extreme resignation in submitting to the yoke of victory.

Whilst glancing thus at the principal states of Europe, we are
particularly struck with the great diversity that exists in the
manners, the institutions, and the destinies of nations. How is it
possible to follow the march of civilization amidst so many republics
and monarchies, some bursting with splendour from the bosom of
barbarism, others sinking into ruins? And how is it possible to point
out the influence of the crusades through so many revolutions, which
have often the same causes, but whose effects are so different, and
sometimes so opposite? Spain, to which we are now about to turn our
attention, will present us with other pictures, and must furnish fresh
subjects for meditation.

During the course of the crusades, we see Spain occupied in its own
boundaries with defending itself against those same Saracens whom
the other nations of Europe went to contend with in the East; in the
north of the Peninsula, some Christian sovereignties had maintained
themselves, which began to be formidable under Sancho the Great, king
of Castile and Arragon. The valour of the Castilians, sustained by the
example of the Cid, and by the influence of chivalric manners, and
seconded by warriors from all the provinces of France, took Toledo,
before the end of the eleventh century. But the conquests of the
Spaniards did not afterwards correspond with the splendour of their
early triumphs; as fast as they retook provinces from the Moors, they
made separate kingdoms of them; and the Spanish power, thus divided,
became, in some sort, weakened by its own victories.

The invasion of the Moors in Spain bore some resemblance to that of
the Franks in Asia. It was the religion of Mahomet that animated the
Saracen warriors to the fight, as the Christian religion inflamed
the zeal and ardour of the soldiers of the cross. Africa and Asia
often answered to the appeal of the Mussulman colonies in Spain, as
Europe did to the cries of alarm of the Christian colonies in Syria.
Enthusiasm gave birth on both sides to prodigies of heroism, and held
fortune for a long time suspended between the two inimical nations and
the two inimical religions.

A spirit of independence naturally grew up among the Spaniards, during
a war in which the state had need of all its citizens, and in which
every citizen, by that means, acquired a great degree of importance.
It has been remarked, with reason, that a people that has done great
things, that an entire people called to the defence of its country,
experiences an exaggerated sentiment of its rights, shows itself more
exacting, sometimes more unjust towards those who govern, and often
feels tempted to employ against its sovereigns the strength it had
employed against its enemies. Thus we may see in the Spanish annals,
that the nobility and the people were more turbulent than in other
countries, and that monarchy was there at first more limited than among
the other nations of Europe.

The institution of the Cortes, the enfranchisement of the commons,
and a crowd of privileges granted to cities, signalized very early,
among the Spaniards, the decay of the feudal system and of the
absolute authority of the monarchs. If we may judge by public acts of
legislation, we might believe that the Spanish people enjoyed liberty
before all the other nations of Europe. But, in times of trouble, we
must be guarded in judging of the liberty of a nation by that which is
said in political rostrums, or in charters and institutions, by turns
obtained by violence and destroyed by power, always placed between two
rocks,—anarchy and despotism. The history of Spain, at this period,
is full of crimes and monstrous deeds, that stain the cause of princes
as well as that of the people: which proves at least that morals did
not keep pace with laws, and that institutions, created among public
discords, did not soften the national character.

Amidst the revolutions which agitated Spain, political passions
sometimes caused even the domination of the Moors to be forgotten.
When at the end of the thirteenth century, the Mussulmans, conquered
by James of Arragon, abandoned the Balearic isles and the kingdom of
Valencia and Murcia, the Spaniards all at once suspended the progress
of their arms. Whilst in the East, the victorious Mamelukes redoubled
their efforts to completely drive the Franks from the coast of Syria;
in the West, the Moors remained, during two centuries, in possession
of a part of Spain, without the Spaniards ever seriously attempting to
complete the conquest of their own country. The standard of Mahomet
floated over the cities of Granada, up to the reign of Ferdinand and
Isabella. It was only at this period that the Spanish monarchy issued
all-powerful from the chaos of revolutions, and revived in the people
the warlike and religious enthusiasm which completed the expulsion of
the Moors. Then terminated the struggle which had lasted during eight
centuries, and in which, according to Spanish authors, three thousand
seven hundred battles were fought. So many combats, which were nothing
but one long crusade, must have been a school of bravery and heroism;
thus the Spaniards, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, were
considered the most brave and warlike nation of Europe. Philosophers
have sought to explain by the influence of climate that spirit of
haughtiness and pride, that grave and austere character which to this
day distinguish the Spanish nation. It appears to us that a much more
natural explanation of this national character is to be found in a war
at once patriotic and religious, in which twenty successive generations
were engaged, the perils of which must have inspired serious thoughts
as well as noble sentiments.

The aversion for the yoke and the religion of the Moors, redoubled the
attachment of the people for their religion and their ancient customs.
The remembrance of that glorious struggle has not failed to animate the
ardour and courage of the Spaniards at a recent period;—fortunate had
it been for Spain if, at the moment at which I am speaking, she had not
forgotten her own examples!

Towards the end of the war against the Moors, Spain adopted the
Inquisition with more warmth than the other Christian nations. I will
not attempt to repel the reproaches which modern philosophers have
addressed to her; but it appears to me that sufficient account has not
been taken of the motives which would render more excusable in Spain
than elsewhere, those suspicions and those dark jealousies for all
which was not the national religion. How could they forget that the
standard of a foreign worship had so long floated over the Peninsula,
and that during many ages, Christian warriors had fought, not only for
the faith of their fathers, but for the very soil of their country
against the infidels? According to my opinion, may it not be believed,
that among the Spaniards, religious intolerance, or rather a hatred for
all foreign religion, had something in itself which was less a jealous
devotion than an ardent, restless patriotism?

Spain took no part in the crusades, till the spirit of these wars began
to die away in the rest of Europe. We must, however, remark, that
this kingdom derived some advantages from the Eastern expeditions. In
almost all the enterprises of Christendom against the Mussulmans of
Asia, a great number of the Crusaders stopped on the coast of Spain
to combat the Moors. Many crusades were published in the West against
the infidels who were masters of the Peninsula. The celebrated victory
of Tolosa over the Moors was the fruit of a crusade preached in
Europe, and particularly in France, by order of the sovereign pontiff.
Expeditions beyond the sea were likewise favourable to the Spaniards,
by retaining in their own country the Saracens of Egypt and Syria, who
might have joined those on the coast of Africa. It has been shown in
this history that the kingdom of Portugal was conquered and founded
by Crusaders. The crusades gave the idea of those orders of chivalry,
which, in imitation of those of Palestine, were formed in Spain, and
without the succour of which the Spanish nation would not perhaps have
triumphed over the Moors.

We may add, that Spain is the country in which the memory of the
crusades was preserved the longest. In the last century, the bull
called _Crusada_ was there published every year in all the provinces.
This solemn publication reminded the Spaniards of the triumphs they had
formerly obtained over the Mussulmans.

We have shown the state of the principal powers of Europe during the
crusades; it now remains for us to speak of a power which dominated
over all the others, and which was as a tie or centre to all the
powers;—we mean the authority of the heads of the Church.

The popes, as a temporal power and as a spiritual power, presented a
singular contrast in the middle ages. As sovereigns of Rome, they had
almost no authority, and were often banished from their own states:
as heads of Christendom, they exercised an absolute empire to the
extremities of the world, and their name was revered wherever the
Gospel was preached.

It has been said that the popes made the crusades; they who maintain
this opinion are far from being acquainted with the general movement
which then affected the Christian world; no power on earth could have
been able to produce such a great revolution; it only belonged to Him
whose will gives birth to and disperses tempests, to throw all at once
into human hearts that enthusiasm which silenced all other passions,
and drew on the multitude as if by an invisible power. In the first
book of this volume we have shown how the enthusiasm for the holy
wars developed itself by degrees, and how it broke forth towards the
end of the eleventh century, without any other influence but that of
the dominant ideas: it led away the whole of society, and the popes
were led away as nations of people were; one proof that the sovereign
pontiffs did not produce this extraordinary revolution is, that they
were never able to revive the spirit of the crusades, when that spirit
became extinct among Christian nations.

It has likewise been said that the crusades very much increased the
authority of the popes; we shall soon see what truth there is in that
assertion. Among the causes which contributed to the growth of the
pontifical authority, we may name the invasion of the barbarians of the
North, who overthrew the empire of the West, and the progress of the
Saracens, who would not allow the emperors of the East leisure to turn
their attention towards Italy, or even to preserve any domination over
that country. The popes thus found themselves freed from two powers
upon which they depended; and remained in possession of the city of
Rome, which appeared to have no other master. Other circumstances added
from that time to the authority of the successors of St. Peter. However
it may be, everybody knows that this authority had already made immense
progress before the crusades; the head of the most powerful monarchs
had already bowed before the thunders of the Vatican; and Christendom
seemed to have already adopted the maxim of Gregory VII., that “the
pope, in quality of Vicar of Jesus Christ, ought to be superior to
every human power.”

It cannot be doubted that a religious war was calculated to favour the
development of the pontifical authority. But this war itself produced
events, and gave rise to circumstances which were less a means of
aggrandizement for the power of the popes, than a rock against which
that power was dashed and injured. But it is positive, that the end of
the crusades left the sovereign pontiffs less powerful than they had
been at the commencement of the holy wars.

Let us, in the first place, say a few words of the advantages which the
heads of the Church derived from the expeditions against the infidels.
Recourse was always had to the sovereign pontiffs when the question of
a crusade was agitated; the holy war was preached in their name, and
carried on under their auspices. Warriors enrolled under the banners of
the cross, received from the pope privileges which freed them from all
other dependence but that of the Church; the popes were the protectors
of the Crusaders, the support of their families, the guardians of their
properties; it was to the popes the Crusaders submitted all their
differences, and confided all their interests.

The sovereign pontiffs were not at first aware of the advantages they
might derive from the crusades. In the first crusade, Urban, who had
enemies to contend with, did not think of asking the assistance of the
warriors he had persuaded to take the cross; it was not till the second
crusade that the popes perceived the ascendancy the holy wars must
give them. At this period a king of France and an emperor of Germany
were, in a manner, lieutenants of the Holy See; in the third crusade,
the pope compelled Henry II. to take the cross, to expiate the murder
of Thomas à Becket. After the death of Henry, his son Richard set out
for the East, at the signal of the sovereign pontiff. In consequence
of this crusade, great disorders, as we have related, disturbed the
kingdom of England; the popes took advantage of them to give laws to
the English people, and a few years after the death of Richard, his
brother and successor acknowledged himself the vassal of the court of
Rome.

The crusades were for the popes a pretext to usurp, in all the states
of Europe, the principal attributes of sovereignty; they became
possessed, in the name of the holy war, of the right of levying
everywhere both armies and imposts; the legates they employed in all
the countries of Christendom exercised supreme authority in their
name; the presence of these legates inspired respect and fear; their
wills were laws. Armed with the cross, they commanded all the clergy
as masters; and as the clergy, among all Christian nations, had
the greatest ascendancy, the empire of the popes had no longer any
opposition or limits.

It may be perceived that we have forgotten none of the advantages the
heads of the Church found in the crusades: here are the obstacles and
the rocks they met with in the exercise of their power.

It must be allowed that the empire of the popes received but very
little increase in Asia during the holy wars; the quarrels and disputes
which constantly disturbed the Christian colonies in the East, and in
which they were obliged to interfere, multiplied their embarrassments,
without adding to their power.

Their voice was not always listened to by the multitude of the
Crusaders; sometimes even the soldiers of the cross resisted the will
and despised the counsels of the pontiffs. The legates of the Holy See
were frequently in opposition to the leaders of the army, and their
character was not always respected in camps. As the popes were supposed
to direct the crusades, they were, in some sort, responsible for the
misfortunes and disorders they had no power to prevent: this moral
responsibility exposed them sometimes to be judged with rigour, and
was injurious to their reputation for wisdom and ability.

By an abuse of the spirit of the crusades, the popes were dragged into
wars in which their ambition was often more interested than religion;
they then thought of their temporal power, and that was their weakest
point; they were never strong but when they depended upon a higher
support; the crusades became for them as a lever, which they employed
to elevate themselves; but it must be allowed that they depended upon
it too much, and when this lever failed them, their authority trembled.
Seeking to regain what they had lost, the popes made, in the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries, incredible efforts to revive the spirit of
the crusades; the question then being no longer to go and fight the
Saracens in Asia, but to defend Europe against the invasion of the
Turks. Amidst the perils of Christendom, the conduct of the popes
merited the greatest praise, and the zeal they displayed has not been
sufficiently appreciated by historians. But the time of the fervour for
crusades was past. The success obtained by the sovereign pontiffs was
never proportionate with their efforts, and the uselessness of their
attempts necessarily weakened the idea entertained of their ascendancy
and their power.

The crusade against the Albigeois procured them very little advantage;
the intolerance which gave birth to that war proceeded from the
crusades; the Inquisition, which arose from it, awakened more passions
than it suppressed. By the Inquisition, the Church assumed in this
world a jurisdiction which partook too strongly of humanity; her
decrees were much more respected when they were referred to heaven or
to a future life.

Nothing can equal the enormity of the tributes that were imposed upon
the clergy for carrying on the holy wars. The tenths were not only
levied for the crusades, but for every attempt at a crusade; not only
for expeditions to the East, but for every enterprise against the
enemies of the court of Rome. They were at length levied under the most
vain pretexts; all Europe addressed warm remonstrances to the popes;
at first the rigour with which the agents collected the tributes was
complained of; and afterwards their infidelity in the application of
the treasures extorted from the faithful became equally a subject of
scandal. Nothing could be more injurious to the pontifical authority
than these complaints, which arose from all quarters, and which, in the
end, furnished weapons for the formidable heresy of Luther.

The history of the popes in the middle ages completes the proof of that
which we have said. Their domination went on constantly increasing
during a century up to Innocent III.; it after that period declined
during another century, down to Boniface VIII., at which time crusades
beyond the seas ended.

In latter days, publicists have said a great deal about the power of
the heads of the Church; but they have judged rather according to
systems than according to facts,—more after the spirit of our own age
than that of the middle ages. The genius of the sovereign pontiffs
has been much lauded, particularly for the purpose of placing their
ambition in a stronger light. But if the popes really had the genius
and the ambition attributed to them, we must believe they would have
been principally employed in aggrandizing their states, and increasing
their authority as sovereigns. Nevertheless, they did not succeed in
this, or else they never attempted it. In fact, what could men do, who
were mostly arrived at the age of decrepitude?—what could princes
do, who merely passed over the throne, to strengthen their authority,
and master the passions belonging to the infancy and the youth of
societies? Among the crowd of popes who succeeded each other, many were
endowed with a superior genius, whilst others only possessed a moderate
capacity; men of all characters and all turns of mind occupied, in
succession, the chair of St. Peter; nevertheless, these men, so
different by their tastes, their passions, and their talents, all aimed
at and all did the same thing; they had, therefore, an impulsion which
was not in themselves, the motive of which must be sought elsewhere
than in the vulgar policy of princes.

That would be a curious history which would trace, in the same picture,
the spiritual empire and the temporal empire of the popes. Who would
not be surprised at seeing in it, on one side, a force which nothing
could resist, which moves the very world,—a will always the same,
which is transmitted from pontiff to pontiff, like a deposit, or like
a sacred heritage; on the other, a policy weak and changeable, like
man,—a power which can scarcely defend itself against the lowest of
its enemies, and which at every moment the breath of revolutions has
power to shake? In this parallel, the imagination would be dazzled
when such an empire should be presented to it as has never been seen
upon earth, and which would lead to the belief that the popes did
not belong to this fragile and transitory world,—a power which hell
cannot pull down,—which the world cannot corrupt,—which, without the
help of any army, and by the simple ascendancy of a few words, subdues
things sooner, and proves itself more formidable, than ancient Rome,
with all her victories. What more magnificent spectacle can the history
of empires present to us? But, in the other part of the picture, who
would not be moved to pity at beholding a government without vigour,
an administration without foresight,—that people, descended from
_the king people_, led by an indolent, timid old man, the eternal
city falling into ruins, and as hidden beneath the grass? When we
see—so near to a power almost supernatural—weakness, uncertainty, the
fragility common to things below, and humanity with all its miseries,
why may we not be permitted to compare the double power of the popes
to Jesus Christ himself, of whom they were the vicars and images upon
earth,—to Jesus Christ, whose double nature presents us, on one side,
a God beaming with splendour, and on the other a simple mortal, loaded
with the cross, and crowned with thorns?

If the principal features of this picture are not wanting in
truthfulness, how can we believe in the policy of the popes as it is
represented to us?—is it not more natural to think that the sovereign
pontiffs, in all they did that was great, followed the spirit of
Christianity? In the middle ages, which was the period of their power,
they were much more directed by this spirit than they directed it
themselves; later, and when popes entertained projects like those that
are attributed to their genius and ambition, their power declined. We
have but to compare Gregory VII., giving himself up to the spirit of
his age, and supporting himself by the ascendancy of the Church, with
Julius II., whom Voltaire calls a great prince, and who only employed
the known combinations of policy.

The pontifical authority was the only one that had its bases and roots
in opinions and beliefs. This power gave the world, or, rather, the
world asked of it, laws, knowledge, and a support. The popes were right
in the famous comparison of the two great luminaries. The authority of
the heads of the Church was much more in advance towards civilization
than the authority of princes. In order that the world might be
civilized, it was important for the popes to have great power; and the
need that was felt for their power favoured the progress of it.

As long as the world was governed by opinions and beliefs, rather
than by civil laws and political authorities, the popes exercised
the greatest influence; when the interests and rights of princes and
nations became better regulated; when the world passed from the empire
of opinions to that of laws; when, in a word, temporal power was well
established in Europe, and prevailed over the spiritual of society, the
pontiffs necessarily lost their ascendancy. Such is the history of the
origin, of the progress, and of the decay of the pontifical power in
the ages which have preceded us.

That which we have said of the popes clearly shows what influence
the Church exercised over the society of Europe in the middle ages;
but gross minds were not yet prepared to receive all the benefits of
Christianity. The alliance of barbarism with superstition retarded the
progress of true knowledge. The passions and customs of barbarians were
still mingled with some salutary institutions.

The Franks, the Germans, and Goths, when obtaining possession of the
richest countries of Europe, had employed all the rights of conquest,
and these rights had become the laws of European society. We may
form an idea of the government of the middle ages by representing to
ourselves a victorious army, which disperses itself throughout the
conquered country, shares the territory and those who inhabit it, and
is always ready to march at the signal of its officers and its supreme
general, to combat the common enemy, and defend its possessions.

As long as discipline and subordination subsisted in this military
colony, public order was not entirely disturbed; and this kind of
government might supply the place of wiser institutions. But as soon as
the relations of assistance and fidelity, obedience and protection,
became weakened, society—or rather the feudal government—no longer
presented anything but the aspect of an army given up to license,—of
an army whose officers and soldiers no longer acknowledged a head, were
no longer subject to direction, and fought at hazard under a thousand
different standards.

The vassals depended, in the first place, on the prince, because they
held their lands and their offices of him. These lands and these
offices becoming hereditary, their holders soon desired to render
themselves independent, and to arrogate to themselves privileges which
only belonged to the sovereign; such as coining money, holding a
jurisdiction, and making war in their own name. From that time there
remained scarcely any trace of subordination.

This decline of society, or, rather, this corruption of the feudal
system, is referrible to the end of the second race. Charlemagne, in
his endeavours to reëstablish the empire of the Cæsars, committed
violence upon the social compact, and his extraordinary efforts
exhausted the powers of royalty. The bow which he had too strongly
bent, broke in the hands of his successors, and his empire crumbled
away, when no longer sustained by the ascendancy of a great character.
Charlemagne wished to emancipate himself from the laws of feudalism;
under his feeble successors, feudalism, in its turn, was desirous of
emancipating itself from the crown. The greatest evil of the feudal
system was that it destroyed all protective power, all tutelary
legislation, which could watch over the order and safety of society.

The monarch, despoiled of all authority, could neither be the support
of innocence nor the avenger of crime; nor the mediator in war, nor the
arbitrator in disputes that disturbed peace. Sovereignty, exercised
by every man who wore a sword, was spread everywhere, without any one
acknowledging its power anywhere; such was the disorder and confusion
among those who disputed, sword in hand, for the wreck of sovereign
power.

Nothing is more afflicting than this picture; the excesses which
accompanied feudal anarchy no one is ignorant of. It does not form part
of our plan to speak of it to any extent; the task we have to perform
is a less painful one: if we turn our looks towards old times, it is
only in order to discover the origin of our institutions; and among
the revolutions of a barbarous age, we have only to make known what
they produced that is salutary and durable. Before we proceed further,
and in order to mix a few consolatory ideas with sad and painful
images, we will show, by the side of the abuses of feudalism, the
advantages contemporary society received from the feudal system, and
the happy germs of civilization which grew from it for the benefit of
following ages.

If the feudal government contained sources of disorder, it prevented
disorder being carried to its height, and the evil from remaining
without remedy. If it favoured anarchy and civil wars, it preserved
Europe from the fury of conquerors, and from that of despotism. Vassals
did not willingly consent to leave their lands; they were only bound to
follow their sovereign to war for a stipulated time. This condition of
the feudal compact, which was general in Europe, was found favourable
for the defence of territory, and placed obstacles in the way of
every project of invasion. Forces, spread about in all parts, served
to protect every country against a foreign enemy, and could not be
collected anywhere to assist the designs of an ambitious leader.

At a time in which passions did everything and laws were nothing, in
which no political interest bound people together, what could have
prevented a prince from assembling armies and ravaging Europe? What
could have prevented a conqueror from subduing several kingdoms, and
subjecting the people to all the excesses of tyranny, supported by the
force of arms alone? It was then to the spirit of resistance of the
feudal nobility that European society owed, in the midst of barbarism,
the advantage of not becoming a prey to Eastern despotism, and security
from wars of invasion.

Feudalism had rights and privileges to defend; the defence of these
rights and privileges naturally led to ideas of independence, and these
ideas of independence spread in the end through all classes of society.
It must not be forgotten that the English barons established liberty in
their country, whilst defending the privileges and rights of the feudal
compact.

The reciprocity of obedience and protection, of services and duties,
kept alive some generous sentiments. From feudal relations was born
that spirit of devotion and respect for the sovereign which is neither
the blind submission of the slave, nor the reasonable submission of
the republican. This sentiment, which was considered, up to modern
times, as the conservative principle of society in monarchies, became
particularly the distinctive character of the French nobility.

The history of the crusades presents us with several examples of this
devotion of the barons and knights to their monarch. When the kings of
France who took the cross, were in any dangers in the East, what proofs
of respect and love did they not receive from the gallant knights who
accompanied them? What spectacle can be more touching than that of the
imprisoned army in Egypt, forgetting its own captivity to deplore that
of Louis IX.! Who is not affected at seeing, upon the coast of Africa,
the French warriors overwhelmed with evils, but finding no tears in
their miseries but to weep for the death of a king of France?

These ties of fidelity, which arose from feudal relations, were so
powerful over men’s minds, that the preachers of the crusades sometimes
invoked them in their exhortations. They preached the duties of
feudalism concurrently with the precepts of the Gospel, and in order
to excite Christian warriors to take the cross, they called them “the
vassals of Jesus Christ.”

It is to the times of the feudal government we must go back, to find
in all its purity, that susceptibility upon the point of honour, that
inviolable fidelity to the word, which then supplied the absence of
laws, and which in polished societies often render men better than laws
themselves. All our ideas of military glory, that boundless esteem
which we accord to bravery, that profound contempt which, amongst us,
is attached to falsehood or felony, are to be traced to this remote
period. Feudalism was so completely mixed up with the spirit and
character of nations, that modern societies have no institutions that
have not some relation with it; and we have everywhere traces of it in
our habits, our manners, and even in our speech.

Let me be allowed to add here one single observation. It is in vain we
protest against our origin by our words; we are incessantly reminded of
it by our tastes, by our sentiments, and sometimes by our pleasures.
In fact, if, on one side, our reason, formed in the school of new
ideas, finds nothing that is not revolting in the middle ages, why, on
the other, does our imagination, moved by the spectacle of generous
passions, delight in representing to itself olden times, and mingling
with gallant knights and paladins? Whilst a severe philosophy heaps
measureless blame upon the barbarous customs of feudalism, and the
gothic manners of our ancestors, how is it that the remembrances which
these manners and these customs have left us inspire still our poets
with pictures which appear to us so full of charms? Why are these
remembrances revived every day with the same success, in our poems, in
our romances, and upon our stage? Would it be true to say that there
is more patriotism in our imagination than in our reason, since the
one would make us forget the history of our country, and the other
unceasingly reminds us of it?

The crusades assisted in destroying the abuses of the feudal system;
they served to preserve all that the system inspired of generous
sentiments, and concurred at the same time in developing that which
it contained that was favourable to civilization. We will finish our
sketch of the manners of feudalism and the salutary effects of the
crusades, by describing the revolution which operated at this time upon
the different classes of society. The nobility will fix our attention
in the first place.

Nobles are found in every nation where the memory of ancestors is
reckoned for anything. There can be no doubt that nobility was common
among the Franks and other barbarous people who invaded Europe. But in
what point of view was this nobility looked upon before the eleventh
and twelfth centuries? How was it at first constituted? How was the
illustration of races transmitted? We are in possession of very few
monuments to assist in deciding these questions; and when we have
thoroughly studied the history of the middle ages, we have nothing
better to do than to imitate the genealogists, who, when embarrassed in
explaining the origin of the most ancient families, content themselves
with assigning it to the night-time of the past.

When we reflect upon the rapidity with which generations pass away,
and how difficult it is, even in civilized times, for most families
to make out their own history during a single century, can we be
astonished that, in times of ignorance and barbarism, there have been
so few means of preserving the memory of the most illustrious families?
In addition to the almost entire absence of written documents, the
idea of true grandeur, the idea of that which constitutes heroic
illustration, did not yet strike men’s minds sufficiently forcibly to
make them preserve a long remembrance of it.[97] In these barbarous
times, men, and even princes, were most frequently only distinguished
by their physical qualities or their bodily defects. To be convinced
of this truth we have but to glance at the list of kings of the middle
ages, in which we find the names of Pepin-le-Bref (Pepin the Short),
Charles-le-Chauve (Charles the Bald), William-le-Roux (William Rufus,
or the Red), Louis-le-Gros (Louis the Fat), Frederick-Barbereusse
(Frederick Barbarossa, or Red Beard), and many others, whom their
age only designated by that which struck their eyes and was obvious
to the grossest perception. There are few things more curious for an
observer, than to see how old chronicles make us acquainted with the
personages whose actions they give an account of. They never omit in
their pictures, either the colour of the hair, or the stature, or the
countenance of the princes and heroes; and their historical portraits
(may I be allowed the comparison?) bear much less resemblance to a
passage of history, than to those descriptions which are now-a-days
written upon the passports of travellers.

If, as a writer has said, entire man was not yet understood, it cannot
be said that virtue was not known, as at any other period; but the idea
of virtue was then lost in that of duty, and with the single sentiment
of duty, which was but the voice of conscience or the modest instinct
of habit, they dreamt not of living in the memory of men.[98] The
desire for illustrating a name belongs to a nascent civilization. When
civilization threw forth its first rays, moral ideas of greatness were
attached to the name of ancient families; and it may be safely said
that nobility was not truly instituted before the value of glory began
to be felt. But what is very certain is, that in the crusades nobility
acquired an eminence that it had never before enjoyed. The exploits
of nobles in the cause of Christianity, were very different affairs
from those wars of castle against castle, with which they employed
themselves in Europe. Nobility from that time found its archives in
history, and the opinion the world entertained of its valour became its
loftiest title.

If we consult the most authentic facts and the most probable opinions,
we have reason to believe that the distinctions of nobility were at
first founded upon great offices, but principally upon property. It was
for the land or estate that, in the feudal system, the oath of fealty
or homage was taken, and the protection of the sovereign claimed. For
the man who was not a proprietor there was no contract, no privilege;
he had nothing to give, nothing to receive; in the times of Joinville,
nobles were called _rich men_. In France, a great proprietor was, by
right, noble; if he was ruined or despoiled, his descendants sank into
the crowd again: thus had the customs of a barbarous age established
it. A strange thing it is, that there are times in which extreme
civilization can make a nation revert to the same estate as extreme
barbarism. When political illusions shall be dispersed, and there shall
remain nothing but the mere substance of society, it is still property,
it is the estate which will establish pre-eminence and denote ranks.
Lands will no longer furnish soldiers, but they will pay taxes for the
support of them; they will no longer be held by the tenure of complying
with the duty of feudal aid; but they will still owe the sovereign the
support of their influence, in exchange for the protection they shall
receive from the sovereign authority.

If, in the middle ages, aristocracy was founded upon land, society
derived a great advantage from the circumstance; for territorial
property, which does not change, which is always the same, preserves
the institutions and manners of a people better than industrial
property, which most frequently belongs no more to one country than
another, and which, on that account, bears within itself the germs
of corruption. If it was for this reason that formerly nobility was
degraded by giving itself up to the speculations of commerce and
industry, it must be agreed that the usage thus established, had at
least a respectable aim, and arose from a salutary principle.[99]

Territorial property had then such an influence over the social
state, that it is quite enough to be acquainted with the changes it
experienced, to judge of the changes to which society was subjected.
“As soon as the state of the property of a certain period is
discovered,” says Robertson, “we may determine with precision what was
at the same time the degree of power then enjoyed by the king or the
nobility.” During the crusades, ecclesiastical and civil laws permitted
nobles to alienate their domains. A great number of them availed
themselves of this fatal privilege, and did not hesitate to sell their
lands; which displaced property, and consequently power. The nobility
thus lost its power, and the crown gained that which the aristocracy
lost.

The crusades, however, were not unproductive of good fruit for the
nobility; gentlemen acquired principalities in the East; most of the
cities of Greece and Syria became so many lordships, which recognised
as masters counts and barons enrolled under the banners of the holy
wars; some, still more fortunate, ascended the throne of David, or
that of Constantine, and took place among the greatest monarchs of
Christendom.

The military orders likewise presented the nobility with amends for
the losses they experienced in ruinous wars. These orders had immense
possessions in both the West and the East; they were for the European
nobility, an asylum in peace, and a school of heroism in war.

It was at this period that the use of surnames was introduced, and
coats of arms were assumed. Every gentleman added to his own name
the name of his estate, or the title of the lordship he possessed;
he placed in his coat of arms a sign which distinguished his family
and marked his nobility; genealogy became a science, and consecrated,
by its researches, the illustration of races. Whatever value may be
now-a-days attached to this science, it must be admitted that it often
threw a great light upon the history of illustrious families, and
sometimes upon the general history of a country to which these families
belonged.

Everything leads us to believe that the origin of surnames,[100] but
more particularly of coats of arms, is due to the Crusaders. The lord
stood in no need of a mark of distinction when he did not go off his
own manor; but he became aware of the necessity for distinguishing
himself from others when he found himself at a distance from home,
and confounded in the crowd of the Crusaders: a great number of
families ruined themselves, or became extinct, in the holy wars. Such
as were ruined attached themselves more strongly to the remembrance
of their nobility, the only wealth that was left them; after the
extinction of families, the necessity for replacing them was felt; it
was under Philip-le-Hardi that the practice of creating nobles was
introduced.[101] As soon as there were new nobles, it became of more
consequence to be considered ancient ones. Property did not appear
sufficient to preserve and transmit a name which itself became a
property, consecrated by history and acknowledged by society. It was
then that nobility attached more value to marks of distinction.

At the end of the feudal government, the nobility, it is true, still
constituted, in a great degree, the strength of the army; but it served
the state in a new character; it conformed more with the spirit of
chivalry than with that of feudalism. A gentleman no longer paid homage
to his sovereign for his estate, but he swore upon his sword to be
faithful to him.

As soon as feudal services ceased to be required, the nobility
increased in zeal for personal service. Kings eagerly welcomed them
when they were no longer formidable; thus they recovered in the favour
of courts a great portion of the advantages they had lost. As they
still held the first rank in society, and preserved a great ascendancy
over the other classes, they continued, by their example, to polish
the spirit and the manners of the nation; and it is by their means
particularly, that those elegant manners were formed which have so long
distinguished the French among all the nations of Europe.

It is difficult, however, to say with precision what the nobility
gained and what they lost by the changes that were effected. Their
existence, doubtless, had something more brilliant in it, but also
something less solid. The honorary prerogatives which they retained,
without giving them any real strength, armed more jealous passions
against them than territorial power had done; for it may be remarked,
that man’s self-love endures riches and power in others, with a better
grace than it endures distinctions.

We must add, likewise, that as society progressed, new means of
illustration, new kinds of notability arose; the moral power of
opinion, which had been attached exclusively to nobility, communicated
itself by degrees to those who contributed to the prosperity of society
by their talents, their knowledge, or their industry.

We have seen the brilliant side of feudalism; we have now to speak
of the state in which the inhabitants of the cities and the country
groaned. Most of the villages and cities depended upon some baron,
whose protection they purchased, and who exercised an arbitrary
jurisdiction over them. Man, reduced to servitude, or rather slavery,
had no law which guarded him against oppression; the produce of labour,
the wages of his sweat, did not belong to him; he was himself a
property which could be claimed anywhere, if he fled away from his
home. Chained to the glebe, he must often have envied the animal who
helped him to trace the furrow, or the palfrey, the noble companion of
his master. The serf had no other hope but that which religion afforded
him, and left nothing to his children but the example of his patience
in suffering. He could neither make a contract during his lifetime, nor
a testament at the hour of death. His last will was not recognised by
law; it died with him. To excuse the barbarity of this gross age, we
must remember the still more frightful fate of slaves among the Greeks
and Romans. We have no need to point out the obstacles this state of
things must have opposed to the development of the industry and the
social faculties of man. Thus the country was covered with forests,
and most of the cities presented nothing but an aspect of poverty and
misery.

The cities of Lombardy, and a great part of Italy, were the first
places that shook off the yoke of feudalism. The emperors of Germany,
as we have seen, were almost always at variance with the popes. The
cities took advantage of these quarrels, to arrogate rights which no
one disputed. Others purchased them of the emperors, who believed they
made a good bargain when they sold that which they had not the power
to refuse. Towards the middle of the eleventh century, the clergy
and nobility had already no more influence in the cities of Italy.
According to the evidence of Otho of Freisengen, a contemporary author,
Italy was full of free cities, all of which had obliged their bishops
to reside within their walls; there was scarcely a noble who was not
subject to the laws and government of a city. In Germany the cities
obtained their freedom at a later period. These Germans, who, according
to Tacitus, considered dwelling in cities as a mark of servitude, not
only in the end built cities, but sought liberty in them. The cities
of the Rhine appear to have been made free by the emperors in the
eleventh century. But most of these cities were poor, they contained
but few inhabitants, and were not able to defend themselves against
the German oligarchy. At the commencement of the fourteenth century,
several free cities, enriched by the commerce of the East, and by the
communications opened by the crusades, formed a confederation, and by
that means made their independence respected.

In England, the spirit of liberty did not take its spring before the
holy wars; the cities, with the exception of that of London, which
had obtained several privileges, scarcely dreamt of independence; the
Britons, as in the times of Virgil, appeared still separated from the
rest of the world. It may be said that liberty in the English nation
was not an affair of locality, but a general affair, which was to be
decided at a later period.

In Spain, the war against the Moors, as we have already said, favoured
the independence of the commons. We are in possession of historical
documents of the eleventh century, which prove that several Spanish
cities enjoyed certain immunities at this period. But the first of
these cities which were summoned to the Cortes, urged by a spirit of
jealousy, refused to admit the others, which was very injurious to the
development and progress of liberty in Spain.

In the south of France, the archives of the communes present us with
some traces of liberty, a long time before the period of the crusades.
The influence of a fine climate, the vivacity which animated the
inhabitants, with some traditions of the Roman law, preserved, in the
provinces which border on Spain and Italy, habits of independence which
might serve as models or examples. When the kings of France thought of
enfranchising some communes, it was from the south of the kingdom they
must have taken the idea.

These enfranchisements of the southern cities, however, were rather
consecrated by custom than by positive laws. According to the best
opinions, the formal and legal enfranchisement of communes in France
dates from Louis-le-Gros, who granted privileges to some cities
situated within the domains of the crown. The example of Louis-le-Gros
was followed by Louis VII. and Philip Augustus. A great number of
cities saw all sorts of slavery excluded from their walls, chose their
own magistrates, levied their own taxes, kept up a military force, and
had a jurisdiction entirely their own. Such was the first blow given in
France to the feudal government.

Before this period it was customary to implore the aid of the barons
against violence and robbery. This support was abandoned as soon as
another tutelary power arose. The serfs, and even the freemen, who had
at first sought safety in castles, soon sought it in cities, against
their former protectors, the castellans; the first engagements of the
inhabitants of cities were mutual defence and reciprocal protection.

The liberty of cities began by the corporations; men could only be
strong when united. This necessity for union in moments of crisis
or peril is so natural, that when society is disturbed, factions
and parties are formed which are like corporations. The spirit of
a public body, or the spirit of party, in whatever way it may be
considered, holds essentially with the social character. Liberty was
much more considered in relation with the community than in relation
with individual man; it was considered a benefit that could only be
enjoyed in common. Thus society did not find itself subordinate to
the individual, but the individual to society. Isolated man could do
nothing; strength lay with the association, which effectually protected
the rights of all, and watched over the conservation of individual
liberty and public liberty.

When cities situated within the royal domains had obtained their
franchises, the spirit of independence soon possessed the other
cities of the kingdom. The communes which succeeded in gaining their
enfranchisement, did not all obtain the same advantages; they were,
more or less, favoured by circumstances. Here, liberty was purchased
of the lord; there, the yoke was shaken off by force; in other places,
treaties were effected, in which the spirit of liberty and feudal power
made mutual concessions.

During the crusades, the long absence of the barons must have
multiplied, for the communes, opportunities of enfranchising
themselves. Most of the lords who ruined themselves for the holy wars,
exchanged, for the money of which they stood in need, all their rights
over the cities which depended upon them—rights which they yielded the
more willingly from hoping to win principalities in Asia.

This enfranchisement of communes produced a very different effect for
the great vassals and the crown. It weakened the authority of the
lords, because the spirit of liberty was against them; it increased
the royal authority, because the cities which were free, or had a
desire to be so, looked to the king. Cities, when their independence
was threatened, implored the king’s protection. We find in old
chronicles, that Philip Augustus granted letters of protection to
cities dependent upon barons. Thus kings became the hope of all the
communes of the kingdom, and liberty supported itself by royalty.
This is why the cities of France, to defend their franchises, formed
no league, as they did in other countries; for they found a natural
defence in royal power.

The revolution which was destined to destroy feudalism, appeared to act
as of itself. There is, in the possession of a newly-acquired good, a
restlessness, an anxiety, a fear of losing it, which kept the communes
always on the alert; there is, on the contrary, in the possession of
an anciently-acquired good, an indolent security, which did not permit
the barons to see the true state of things. The lords only opposed new
ideas by a short-sighted disdain, and believed they had lost nothing as
long as they retained their swords by their sides.

If, however, we may judge by the complaints of Guibert, abbot of
Nogent, a contemporary historian, the enfranchisement of the communes
met with some opposition. There was no want of sour spirits, who
considered it a dangerous and destructive innovation. But we may
believe that these complaints were only inspired by that natural
repugnance which the greater part of men entertain for seeing anything
change which is consecrated by time, and by that vague mistrust
which novelty produces, under whatever form it may appear. The truth
is, that nobody knew, or could possibly judge, of the extent of the
changes that were then in operation. Revolutions, whatever may be their
object or their character, are never thoroughly understood before they
have finished their course, and never reveal their secret at their
commencement.

A century after Louis-le-Gros, Louis VIII. pretended to have the right
of immediate sovereignty over all the communes. This was a signal for
all the cities to complete their emancipation from the barons; this was
the mortal blow to the feudal aristocracy. This great revolution of
the social state went on so rapidly, that history can with difficulty
follow its progress, and cannot assign the part which the crusades bore
in it.

Happy had it been for society if that spirit of liberty which then set
it in motion, and which advanced without ceasing, sowing blessings and
evils on its route, had produced none but wise institutions; if, always
confined within just bounds, it had not frequently kindled bloody
discords, and had not at last mingled itself with the blind passions
of the multitude! What a picture were that which should exhibit the
consequences of this revolution up to modern times, which should
represent monarchy rising from the ruins of feudalism and then itself
succumbing in a new revolution! What a subject for serious thoughts in
the historian, when, embracing with a rapid glance ancient and modern
times, he sees the two most active forces of society, at the revival
of civilization,—royalty and liberty, marching constantly one towards
the other, demanding of each other reciprocal support, overthrowing
all the barriers that separated them, destroying all they found in
their passage; at last, after several ages of endeavours, meeting face
to face upon the ruins accumulated round them, taking each other at
first sight for enemies, declaring war against each other, and falling
together on the same field of battle![102]

God forbid that I should here be thought to present discouraging
images! I have only wished to show the fragility of human affairs, and
the want of foresight in those who direct societies. The revolution we
have beheld is, perhaps, less the work of liberty than of the equality
which is seen to figure, for the first time, in the political world.

This equality, such as the moderns have constituted it, was scarcely
known in the ancient republics, of which the language had no word to
express it. The first book that spoke of equality was the Gospel.
Christianity constantly represents all men as equal before God. The
object of the Gospel was to lower the pride of the great; which was
salutary. I know not what false philosophy made use of equality to
raise the pride of the low;—and then society was shaken to its very
foundations.

The great revolution which has been effected in the manners and laws
of Europe, and which began at the times of the crusades, may be
divided into two principal epochs. At first it was desirable to wrest
from the feudal lords a power which they abused: that was the first
epoch,—that was the revolution of liberty. When the feudal lords had
nothing left but distinctions, these distinctions irritated pride and
jealousy, which, in the end, persuaded themselves that every political
superiority was a tyranny, which must be brought low. This was the
second epoch,—the revolution of equality; much more terrible than
the first, because it had for motive, passions much more difficult to
satisfy than the love of liberty.

But the peasants and serfs of the country, whilst the cities were
in the enjoyment of liberty, still groaned in slavery. Up to the
fourteenth century, this numerous class found no abatement in the
rigours of their servitude. The greatest advantage the crusades could
have bestowed upon the peasants, was the momentary cessation of
brigandage, and the peace which reigned in the country, all the time
the wars against the Saracens were being carried on.

It is probable that serfs in Europe were not better treated, according
to the legislation and customs of the West, than they were in the Holy
Land, according to the _Assizes of Jerusalem_. There is no doubt that
peasants taken from the glebe for the crusade became free men; but most
of them perished by misery or by the swords of the Mussulmans. What
became of the few who revisited their homes cannot be ascertained.

A population dispersed and scattered about a country did not present,
as in cities, a formidable mass, capable of resistance. Peasants rarely
communicated with each other, and could not support any demand, or
establish any common right. Man requires some intelligence to make
him sensible of the advantages of liberty, and the peasant class was
then brutified by ignorance. We must likewise add, that the love of
independence came with riches; and this is why it arose earlier in
cities than in the country, and earlier in flourishing cities than in
poorer ones. The serfs of the country were poor; they would not have
known what use to make of liberty. Liberty is of little value to him
who is in want of the first necessaries of life. Among warlike and
barbarous hordes, who entertained a repugnance for labour, it was
natural that they should be despised who gave themselves up to the
painful toil of cultivating the earth. This repugnance was necessarily
more strong among nomad nations, like those that conquered Europe. The
contempt felt in the middle ages for the peasantry was injurious to
their liberty; and this contempt even survived their servitude. People
felt, in some sort, forced to treat as slaves men who performed a task
which was considered necessary, but which every free man disdained.

The inhabitant of the country, abandoned to his own resources, did
not aspire to independence; the only good he could pretend to was
the choice of slavery. As the Church inspired more confidence than
the nobles, a crowd of unfortunate beings took refuge, in a manner,
at the foot of the altars, and devoted their liberty and that of
their children to this church or that monastery, to which they
looked for protection. Nothing is more curious than the formulæ by
which the clergy received this sacrifice of individual liberty. They
congratulated the new serfs with having preferred “the domination of
Jesus Christ to the liberty of the age;” they added, that “to serve
God was to reign,” and that “a holy servitude was true independence.”
These words must have been in harmony with the manners and ideas of the
times, since a multitude of men and women were seen every day flocking
to the monasteries, and conjuring the Church to admit them among “the
serfs of Jesus Christ.” That they should believe themselves, on that
account, much more free than other men, we may at the present day be
astonished; but was there not a sort of liberty in wearing chains they
had chosen, and with which they had fettered themselves?

Some free cities of Germany contributed to the enfranchisement of the
peasants of their territory. The same thing happened in Italy and in
Spain, where the territory of cities was considerable; in England, the
peasantry waited a long time for any amelioration of their fate. But
nothing is more difficult than to ascertain with certainty the destiny
which, during many ages, this multitude of men who covered the plains
of Europe underwent; in the darkness of the middle ages, numberless
generations of serfs passed over the earth, without leaving any traces
in history. We can with difficulty catch, in old chronicles and acts of
administration, here and there a few scattered gleams to throw a light
upon our researches.

In France, it is not till the commencement of the fourteenth century
that any ordinances of the kings upon the enfranchisement of the
serfs are to be found. In an ordinance of 1315, Louis X. made use of
these remarkable words: “Many persons among our common people are
enchained in the bonds of servitude, which displeases us greatly....
Our kingdom,” he added, “is called and named the kingdom of the Franks;
we are desirous that the thing should in truth be in accordance with
its name,” &c. In this ordinance, made only for the royal domains, the
king of France pressed the nobles to follow his example. “We are in
possession of a letter-patent of the same king, by which commissaries
were commanded to transport themselves to the bailiwick of Senlis, and
“to give freedom to all who required it,” on condition, nevertheless,
of paying a sum for the rights of servitude, which reverted to the
crown.

All the historical documents of this period prove, more and more, that
the kings had placed themselves at the head of the general movement
of society. In all they then did, their motive, doubtless, was to
reëstablish order in the kingdom, and to found their authority upon
the protection granted to those who suffered from the violences and
excesses of feudal anarchy. If, however, we may judge by the ordinance
just quoted, and by many other similar ones, their policy was not
always disinterested, and, like most of the barons, they sometimes sold
rather than granted the freedom of the serfs and the communes.

Many peasants showed themselves but little disposed to receive a
liberty which was to be sold to them. Some from poverty, others from
mistrust, a great number from unwillingness to change their condition,
refused the benefit that was offered to them. Such is the spirit of
man, that they resolved to remain serfs, because they were condemned to
be such no longer. In several provinces, even disorders were created by
their resistance. This was slaves fighting, with their chains, against
Liberty herself. At a later period, the _jaquerie_ proved that it was
more easy to kindle the passions of a gross people, than to make them
free; and that it was far, as regarded the serfs, from impatience under
the yoke and hatred for their masters, to the true love of liberty.

When we are desirous of breaking the chains of the multitude, it is
never to the multitude that we must address ourselves; in order that
the fate of the lower classes should be ameliorated, the amelioration
must come from the superior classes, by whom knowledge is spread and
institutions are established. This is what happened at the period of
which we are speaking. The servitude of the country was much softened
by the maxims of the clergy, but more particularly by the influence
of that French magistracy which had arisen contemporaneously with
civilization.

In the middle of the fifteenth century, some serfs of Catalonia,
who had taken refuge in France, being claimed by their lords, the
parliament of Thoulouse declared that every man who entered into the
kingdom crying _France!_ became free. Mezerai,[103] who relates this
fact, adds: “Such is the kingdom of France, that its air communicates
liberty to those who breathe it, and our kings are so august that they
only reign over free men.”

At the beginning of the sixteenth century, scarcely a trace of
servitude could be found in the cities or the country. History could
but applaud this revolution, if the fall even of feudalism, whilst
destroying ancient abuses, had not placed governments in antagonism
with difficulties which had not been foreseen, and whose consequences
were destined to be deplorable. When the feudal government, which cost
the people nothing,[104] was quite overthrown, it became necessary
to provide for the expenses of a new administration; when the state
had lost the defenders which the feudal laws provided for it, others
were to be sought, and their services to be remunerated. Thence came
the necessity for stipendiary armies and regular and permanent taxes.
To provide the money wanted, the coinage was debased, the Jews were
persecuted, violence was had recourse to, and justice was sold,—all
of which tended to corrupt both the government and the nation. The
embarrassment of the finances, and the disorders it produced, have only
increased up to the present day. To remedy this, the moral strength and
life of society have often been neglected, and means of raising money
have constituted the whole policy of states. To have credit, or not to
have it, that is, now-a-days, life or death for governments. _Credit_,
_deficit_, _bankruptcy_, are three words, of which the ancients and the
middle ages were quite ignorant; but which are now constantly present
to the restless, uneasy minds of kings and ministers. These three words
will perhaps one day be sufficient to explain the decline and fall of
empires.

Whatever was the weight of the public impositions, it must be allowed
that the taxes gave rise to more frequent relations between governments
and the people, which proved advantageous to liberty. People gave more
attention to the administration which they paid for with the fruit of
their industry and labour. Sovereigns had more consideration for the
different classes of citizens of whom they demanded tribute; and were
constrained to consult them in certain circumstances, in order that the
people, says Pasquier, might not have occasion to be dissatisfied or
murmur. The origin of representative government, as it exists in many
European nations in our days, has been sought for in remote times; but
everything leads us to believe that it owed its birth to the relations
which the wants of states and the necessity for taxes naturally
established between peoples and governments.

That which most increased the embarrassments of the majority of
European monarchies, after the fall of feudalism, was the excessive
enlargement of their military establishments. At the moment I am
writing, there is no necessity to point out this fearful rock of
modern societies It is not a century since Montesquieu predicted that
Europe would perish by its armies.[105] God grant that this prophecy
be not about to be accomplished! The military force of Europe has
given us reason to dread all the evils it was intended to prevent. It
was to defend every kingdom from foreign invasions; and yet there is
not a kingdom in Europe that has not been invaded, or threatened with
invasion. It was deemed necessary to restrain the multitude by means of
armies; and armies have been raised to such numbers of men, that they
have become the multitude itself under arms. Can it be true, as has
been said, that there is no remedy for this evil? Deplorable state of
things, without which society cannot last, with which it cannot exist!

The crusades have been reproached with having given birth to the idea
of imposts; this idea is too simple not to have arisen without the
help of the crusades.[106] It is probable that the manner in which
the tenths were collected for the holy war, might serve as a model
for those who afterwards established regular contributions. As to
regular armies, the expeditions to the East might furnish the first
idea of them. It is certain that these distant expeditions changed
the conditions of the feudal service, and accustomed people to see
permanent armies maintained and commanded by princes.

Among the institutions which contended with the barbarism of the middle
ages, we will, in the first place, consider chivalry, the exploits of
which are much better known than its origin. At a time when everything
was decided by force, and everything was determined by the sword;—in
which, as Montesquieu says, to judge was to fight—women, children,
and orphans were not able to defend their rights, and were abandoned
a prey to iniquity. Generous warriors came forward to defend them;
their devotion was applauded,—their example was followed. Shortly the
order of Paladins was formed, who perambulated the world, seeking for
wrongs to redress, and felons to combat with. Such was, doubtless, the
origin of chivalry, which is so uselessly sought for in the forests of
Germany. This institution sprang from the extreme disorder of society,
and arose like a bulwark, which human generosity opposed to the
irruptions of license, and the passions of a barbarous age.

Chivalry was known in the West before the crusades. These wars, which
appeared to have the same aim as chivalry,—that of defending the
oppressed, serving the cause of God, and combating with infidels,—gave
this institution more splendour and consistency,—a direction more
extended and salutary.

Religion, which mingled itself with all the institutions and all the
passions of the middle ages, purified the sentiments of the knights,
and elevated them to the enthusiasm of virtue. Christianity lent
chivalry its ceremonies and its emblems, and tempered, by the mildness
of its maxims, the asperities of warlike manners.

Piety, bravery, and modesty were the distinctive qualities of chivalry:
“Serve God, and he will help you; be mild and courteous to every
gentleman, by divesting yourself of all pride; be neither a flatterer
nor a slanderer, for such people seldom come to great excellence. Be
loyal in words and deeds; keep your word; be helpful to the poor and to
orphans, and God will reward you.”[107] Thus said the mother of Bayard
to her son; and these instructions of a virtuous mother comprised the
whole code of chivalry.

The most admirable part of this institution was the entire abnegation
of self,—that loyalty which made it the duty of every knight to forget
his own glory, and only publish the lofty deeds of his companions in
arms. The deeds of valour of a knight were his fortune, his means
of living; _and he who was silent upon them was a robber of the
property of others_. Nothing appeared more reprehensible than for a
knight to praise himself. “If the squire,” says le Code des Preux,
“be vain-glorious of what he has done, he is not worthy to become a
knight.” An historian of the crusades offers us a singular example of
this virtue, which is not entirely humility, and might be called the
false modesty of glory, when he describes Tancred checking his career
in the field of battle, to make his squire swear to be for ever silent
upon his exploits.

The most cruel insult that could be offered to a knight, was to accuse
him of falsehood. Want of truth, and perjury, were considered the most
shameful of all crimes. If oppressed innocence implored the succour of
a knight, woe to him who did not respond to the appeal! Shame followed
every offence towards the weak, and every aggression towards an unarmed
man.

The spirit of chivalry kept up and strengthened among warriors the
generous sentiments which the military spirit of feudalism had given
birth to: devotion to his sovereign was the first virtue, or rather the
first duty, of a knight. Thus in every state of Europe grew up a young
military power, always ready for fight, and always ready to sacrifice
itself for prince or for country, as for the cause of justice and
innocence.

One of the most remarkable characteristics of chivalry, and that which
at the present day most strongly excites our surprise and curiosity,
was the alliance of religious sentiments with gallantry. _Devotion and
love_,—such was the principle of action of a knight: _God and the
ladies_,—such was his device.

To form an idea of the manners of chivalry, we have but to glance
at the tournaments, which owed their origin to it, and which were
as schools of courtesy and festivals of bravery. At this period,
the nobility were dispersed, and lived isolated in their castles.
Tournaments furnished them with opportunities for assembling; and it
was at these brilliant meetings that the memory of ancient gallant
knights was revived,—that youth took them for models, and imbibed
chivalric virtues by receiving rewards from the hands of beauty.

As the ladies were the judges of the actions and the bravery of the
knights, they exercised an absolute empire over the minds of the
warriors; and I have no occasion to say that this ascendancy of the
softer sex threw a charm over the heroism of the _preux_ and the
_paladins_. Europe began to escape from barbarism from the moment the
most weak commanded the most strong,—from the moment when the love of
glory, when the noblest feelings of the heart, the tenderest affections
of the soul, everything that constitutes the moral force of society,
was able to triumph over every other force.

Louis IX., a prisoner in Egypt, replies to the Saracens, that he will
do nothing without Queen Marguerite, “who is his lady.” The orientals
could not comprehend such deference; and it is because they did not
comprehend this deference, that they have remained so far in the rear
of the nations of Europe, in nobleness of sentiment, purity of morals,
and elegance of manners.

Heroes of antiquity wandered over the world to deliver it from scourges
and monsters; but these heroes were not actuated by religion, which
elevates the soul, nor by that courtesy which softens the manners.
They were acquainted with friendship, as in the cases of Theseus
and Pirithous, and Hercules and Lycas; but they knew nothing of the
delicacy of love. The ancient poets take delight in representing the
misfortunes of certain heroines abandoned by their lovers; but, in
their touching pictures, there never escapes from their plaintive
muse the least expression of blame against the hero, who thus caused
the tears of beauty to flow. In the middle ages, or according to the
manners of chivalry, a warrior who should have imitated the conduct of
Theseus to Ariadne, or that of the son of Anchises towards Dido, would
not have failed to incur the reproach of treachery.

Another difference between the spirit of antiquity and the sentiments
of the moderns is, that among the ancients love was supposed to
enervate the courage of heroes; and that in the days of chivalry, the
women, who were the judges of valour, constantly kept alive the love
of glory and an enthusiasm for virtue, in the hearts of the warriors.
We find in Alain Chartier, a conversation of several ladies, who
express their opinions upon the conduct of their knights, who had been
present at the battle of Agincourt. One of these knights had sought
safety in flight, and the lady of his thoughts exclaims: “According
to the law of love, I should have loved him better dead than alive.”
In the first crusade, Adela, countess of Blois, wrote to her husband,
who was gone to the East with Godfrey of Bouillon: “Beware of
meriting the reproaches of the brave.” As the count of Blois returned
to Europe before the taking of Jerusalem, his wife made him blush
at his desertion, and forced him to return to Palestine, where he
fought bravely, and found a glorious death. Thus the spirit and the
sentiments of chivalry gave birth to prodigies equally with the most
ardent patriotism of ancient Lacedæmon; and these prodigies appeared so
simple, so natural, that the chroniclers only repeat them in passing,
and without testifying the least surprise at them.

This institution, so ingeniously called “Fountain of courtesy, which
comes from God,” is still much more admirable when considered under the
all-powerful influence of religious ideas. Christian charity claimed
all the affections of the knight, and demanded of him a perpetual
devotion for the defence of pilgrims and the care of the sick. It was
thus that were established the orders of St. John, of the Temple, of
the Teutonic Knights, and several others, all instituted to combat the
Saracens and solace human miseries. The infidels admired their virtues,
as much as they dreaded their bravery. Nothing is more touching than
the spectacle of these noble warriors, who were seen by turns in the
field of battle and in the asylum of pain; sometimes the terror of
the enemy, and as frequently the consolers of all who suffered. That
which the paladins of the West did for beauty, the knights of Palestine
did for poverty and misfortune. The former devoted their lives to the
ladies of their thoughts; the latter devoted theirs to the poor and the
infirm. The grand-master of the military order of St. John took the
title of “Guardian of the poor of Jesus Christ,” and the knights called
the sick and the poor “Our lords.” It appears almost an incredible
thing, but the grand-master of the order of St. Lazarus, instituted for
the cure and the relief of leprosy, was obliged to be chosen from among
the lepers.[108] Thus the charity of the knights, in order to be the
better acquainted with human miseries, in a manner ennobled that which
is most disgusting in the diseases of man. Did not this grand-master
of St. Lazarus, who was obliged himself to be afflicted with the
infirmities he was called upon to alleviate in others, imitate, as much
as is possible on earth, the example of the Son of God, who assumed a
human form in order to deliver humanity?

It may be thought that there was ostentation in so great a charity; but
Christianity, as we have said, had subdued the pride of the warriors,
and that was, without doubt, one of the noblest miracles of the
religion of the middle ages. All who then visited the Holy Land could
but admire in the knights of St. John, the Temple, and St. Lazarus,
their resignation in suffering all the pains of life, their submission
to all the rigours of discipline, and their docility to the least
wish of their leader. During the sojourn of St. Louis in Palestine,
the Hospitallers having had a quarrel with some Crusaders who were
hunting on Mount Carmel, the latter brought their complaint before the
grand-master. The head of the Hospital ordered before him the brothers
who had outraged the Crusaders, and to punish them, condemned there
to eat their food on the ground upon their mantles. “It happened,”
says the sieur de Joinville, “that I was present with the knights who
had complained, and we requested the master to allow the brothers to
arise from their mantles, which he refused.” Thus the rigour of the
cloisters and the austere humility of cenobites had nothing repulsive
for these warriors. Such were the heroes that religion and the spirit
of the crusades had formed. I know that this submission and humility in
men accustomed to arms may be turned into ridicule; but an enlightened
philosophy takes pleasure in recognising the happy influence of
religious ideas upon the manners of a society given up to barbarous
passions. In an age when all power was derived from the sword, in which
passion and anger might have carried warriors to all kinds of excesses,
what more agreeable spectacle for humanity could there be than that of
valour humbling itself, and strength forgetting itself?

We are aware that the spirit of chivalry was sometimes abused, and
that its noble maxims did not govern the conduct of all knights. We
have described in the history of the crusades, the lengthened discords
which jealousy created between the two orders of St. John and the
Temple. We have spoken of the vices with which the Templars were
reproached towards the end of the holy wars. We could speak still more
of the absurdities of knight-errantry; but our task is here to write
the history of institutions, and not that of human passions. Whatever
may be thought of the corruption of men, it will always be true
that chivalry, allied with the spirit of courtesy and the spirit of
Christianity, awakened in human hearts virtues and sentiments of which
the ancients were ignorant.

That which proves that everything was not barbarous in the middle
ages is, that the institution of chivalry obtained, from its birth,
the esteem and admiration of all Christendom. There was no gentleman
who was not desirous of being a knight. Princes and kings took honour
to themselves for belonging to chivalry. In it warriors came to take
lessons of politeness, bravery, and humanity. Admirable school, in
which victory laid aside its pride, and grandeur its haughty disdain;
to which those who had riches and power came to learn only to make use
of them with moderation and generosity.

As the education of the people was formed upon the example of the
higher classes of society, the generous sentiments of chivalry spread
themselves by degrees through all ranks, and mingled with the character
of the European nations; gradually, there arose against those who were
wanting in their duties of knighthood, a general opinion, more severe
than the laws themselves, which was as the code of honour, as the cry
of the public conscience. What might not be hoped from a state of
society, in which all the discourses held in camps, in tournaments,
in meetings of warriors, was reduced to these words: “Evil be to him
who forgets the promises he has made to religion, to patriotism, to
virtuous love; evil be to him who betrays his God, his king, or his
lady?”

When the institution of chivalry fell by the abuse that was made of
it, or rather in consequence of the changes in the military system of
Europe; there remained still in European society some of the sentiments
it had inspired, in the same manner as there remains with those who
have forgotten the religion in which they were born, something of its
precepts, and particularly of the profound impressions which they
received from it in their infancy. In the times of chivalry, the
reward of good actions was glory and honour. This coin, which is so
useful to nations, and which costs them nothing, did not fail to have
some currency in following ages. Such is the effect of a glorious
remembrance, that the marks and distinctions of chivalry serve still in
our days to recompense merit and bravery.

Since it can with truth be said that the crusades added some lustre and
gave some ascendancy to chivalry, it must be agreed that they rendered
essential service to humanity.

If the institution of chivalry was a barrier against license and
barbarism, the institution of the clergy, founded upon more fixed and
durable principles, ought to have rendered still greater services to
civilization.

The ascendancy and wealth of the clergy placed them on an equality
with the nobility, in the feudal system; but it must be allowed that
the rank assigned them in this order of things was repugnant to
their character and to the state of society. We do not hesitate to
say that the feudal system had a tendency to corrupt the institution
of the clergy, as the clergy corrupted the feudal system. The clergy,
instructed in principles of peace, were not fit to carry out the
conditions of the military régime; on the other side, the military
régime was sure to change the pacific manners of the clergy. It was not
at all uncommon to see prelates clad in cuirass and helmet. Sometimes
country priests led to battle the flock which a religion of peace
had confided to them. This military spirit in ecclesiastics was much
increased by the crusades, in which their arms were sanctified by the
object of the war. The clergy, however, never became sufficiently
warlike to fulfil all the feudal engagements; and we may add likewise,
that they were not always sufficiently pacific to fulfil all their
religious duties.

It may be concluded, from what we have just said, that the
ecclesiastical order and the feudal government would, in the long run,
repel each other. If we consult the history of the middle ages, we
shall see that the barons and nobles often showed themselves jealous of
the power of the clergy, and that the clergy, in the end, contributed
to the ruin of the foundations of feudalism.

The existence of the clergy underwent many modifications, according
to times, places, and circumstances. In Italy, they enjoyed but very
little credit, and took part in most popular factions. In Germany, the
high clergy shared with the nobility the wrecks of imperial power. In
Spain, they contributed greatly to the expulsion of the Moors, and
the spoils of the vanquished added to their wealth. In England, the
clergy associated themselves with the barons, and contended with the
crown. In France, they attached themselves to royalty, and favoured the
constantly increasing power of the monarchs.

If we may judge by the councils which were held during the crusades,
most of which were occupied with reforming ecclesiastical discipline,
we have reason to believe that the morals of the clergy had then a
strong tendency to corruption. Old chronicles are particularly severe
against the Crusaders and the clergy of the East, whom they unceasingly
accuse of outraging morality and religion by their excesses. Some of
the chroniclers even, like James of Vitry, draw such hideous pictures,
that they are suspected of injustice, or at least of exaggeration. It
is not useless, for the sake of historical truth, to remark here, that
most of the historians of whom we now speak, belonged to the class of
preachers charged with the task of censuring their age, and who were
often obliged to darken their colours in order to move the multitude.
In all times, sacred orators have been seen exaggerating the vices it
was their object to combat; and if we were not aware of the charity
which animates them, we might sometimes mistake their discourses for
violent satires. This is an observation of which we ought not to lose
sight whilst reading the chronicles of the middle ages, which are
almost all drawn up by ecclesiastics, accustomed by their profession to
judge their contemporaries with severity. Another observation proved by
history is, that corruption is spoken of with more bitterness in times
in which it is scarcely known, than in times in which it has become
general. In ages in which some ideas of virtue still prevail, people
accuse themselves; and in ages quite corrupted, they praise themselves.

A chronicle of the time of the first crusades tells us, that the
iniquities of men had then reached their height; and, what at once
characterizes the spirit of the chronicler and that of his age, he adds
that these iniquities would have shortened the duration of the world,
“if it had not been that some new monastic congregations were formed.”
In fact, during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, more monasteries
were founded than in all the other centuries of the middle ages. The
enthusiasm for the holy wars, by exalting the imaginations of nations,
had produced a mental revolution; prodigies were everywhere seen that
had never been observed till that time; devotion itself believed that
it could no longer attain salvation by ordinary ways: whilst a crowd
of warriors precipitated themselves upon the East, many pious souls,
to perform penance, sought for private mortifications, and devoted
themselves to the rigours of a voluntary exile, or buried themselves in
deserts.

At the head of the monastic congregations which were formed at this
period, we must place that of the Brothers of Mercy, which had its
birth in the third crusade, and was instituted for the purpose of
delivering captives. These venerable cenobites, after the example
of the heroes of chivalry, sought for victims to console, and for
the miserable to succour. Like knights, they exposed themselves to
a thousand dangers, and braved death in the exercise of beneficence
and charity. It was during the sixth crusade that the two orders of
St. Dominic and St. Francis arose, orders which, according to the
expression of the abbot of Usberg, renewed the youth of the Church.
From the thirteenth century these two orders sent missions into the
East, and into the north of Asia. Whilst the Tartar hordes were
overturning empires, ravaging Europe, and threatening all Christendom,
poor priests traversed the solitudes of Tartary, penetrated even into
China; and, peaceful conquerors, armed with the Gospel, extended the
empire of Christianity, and planted the standard of the cross at the
extremities of the known world. The religious colonies which they then
founded in Asia lasted much longer than the colonies founded by the
Crusaders.

We will not attempt to enumerate all the services which religious
communities rendered society. They had regulations which might serve
for models in the infancy of political legislation. They were in all
respects like the corporations of cities. Whilst anarchy disturbed
cities, the woods had their legislation; and the germs of civilization
developed themselves in silence and in solitude.

It was in monasteries that were found the only schools in which letters
were taught, and that the Latin language, and the wonders it produced,
were preserved. It was in them that studious men kept a faithful
register of events, and employed themselves in transmitting to us those
historical documents without which the glory and the manners of our
ancestors would be unknown to us.

Besides that the clergy contributed greatly to the fertilizing of
uncultivated lands, they protected the labourers with the whole power
of the Church. The Truce of God, which was the work of the clergy,
placed under the safeguard of Heaven, the inhabitants of the fields,
the oxen, the companions of their labours, and even the instruments
of their tillage. The Church went still further; it multiplied the
festivals of the calendar, for the sake of the people. By augmenting
the number of religious solemnities, the Church had two motives: the
first, to bring more frequently to the foot of the altar an ignorant
and gross multitude, who there found the instruction necessary for
the amelioration of their morals and the consolation of their evils;
the second, to procure some days of repose for that crowd of serfs,
condemned by the avarice of their masters to labours which had no end,
and of which they did not gather the fruit.[109]

Amidst wars which revived without ceasing, the peasantry often found
an asylum near a monastery inhabited by peaceful men, and protected by
the opinions of the times. Nothing can prove better the ascendancy of
the Church, than seeing, on one side, the nobility shut up in their
strong castles, and on the other, cenobites dwelling in cloisters
scarcely closed, and defended only by faith and confidence. As might be
expected, the peace which reigned in the neighbourhood of monasteries
attracted a numerous population around them. Many towns, and even
cities, owed their origin to the vicinity of a monastery, whose name
they still preserve.

The maxims of the clergy, more perhaps than their example, contributed
to the enfranchisement of serfs. Gregory the Great, when giving liberty
to some slaves, said that the Redeemer came upon earth to release
men from slavery, and to substitute the rights of the people for the
code of servitude. In the middle ages, many charters of liberty were
granted for “the love of God,—for the salvation of the soul,—for the
remission of sins.” It was at the hour of death, and by testamentary
dispositions, that most enfranchisements were granted; from which we
may conclude that it was the work of the priests who assisted the
dying. The clergy represented the enfranchisement of slaves as a thing
agreeable to God; the ceremony of manumission was performed in the
church as a solemn religious act. It was at the foot of the altars
that the holy words were pronounced which broke the bonds of slavery.
Thus everything announced that the spirit of the Gospel was everywhere
mingled with the progress of civilization, and that the liberty of
modern nations was to be one of the blessings of Christianity.

There was another mode of gaining liberty, which was by entering into
holy orders, or to take vows in a monastery. So great a number of
slaves escaped by that means from the yoke of their masters, that this
custom was obliged to be restrained, and at last entirely abolished,
in almost all the states of Europe. The crusades often bestowed upon
the serfs the same privileges that the clergy did. Beneath the banners
of the cross, serfs found the enfranchisement they had before found in
monasteries. This facility which peasants possessed, of breaking their
chains by going to the Holy Land, would have depopulated the plains, if
new regulations had not placed restrictions and limits to it.

It has been said that the clergy became enriched by the crusades. This
assertion, which has been so often repeated by the writers of the last
century, requires to be examined by the impartiality of history. The
clergy were rich at the period of the first crusade. Their enemies
accused them for a long time of having usurped immense properties. In
France, under the two first races, their wealth had given umbrage to
the barons, who had several times despoiled them, under the pretext
that they did not defend the state, and that the property they held
belonged to them whose bravery watched over the safety of the kingdom.

If the crusades enriched the clergy, it might be supposed that the
clergy would be most rich in countries which took the greatest part in
the crusades. Now, the clergy of Germany, and several other states of
Europe, surpassed in wealth the clergy of the kingdom of France, where
the crusades excited so much enthusiasm, and caused so many warriors
to take arms. The clergy, it is true, found new possessions in the
East; but, after the crusades, nothing of them was left but vain titles.

The first crusade must have been, as we have said, very profitable to
the clergy; they were not obliged to pay the expenses of it; the zeal
of the faithful furnished them. Nevertheless they did take part in
this crusade; and the priests who set out, with the other Crusaders,
certainly did not enrich themselves in their pilgrimage. Many, no
doubt, shared the fate of Robert, abbot of St. Remi, the historian of
the first crusade, who, on his return from Jerusalem, was expelled by
his monks for having ruined his convent.

At the second crusade, contributions were levied upon the churches,
without any regard to the warm remonstrances of the ecclesiastics.
From that time an opinion, which became very injurious to the clergy,
was established throughout the Christian world, which was, that wars
undertaken for the glory of Jesus Christ and the deliverance of the
holy places, ought to be paid for by the Church. Tributes were at
once levied upon the clergy, without consulting any other authority,
or following any other regulations than those of necessity and
circumstances. To reckon from the third crusade, after the publication
of the _Saladin tenth_, more regular imposts were established, which
were fixed by the popes or councils, and which were collected with such
rigour, that churches were despoiled of their ornaments, and sometimes
the sacred vases were put up to sale. It is true that the clergy
sometimes received offerings and bequests from those who went to the
Holy Land, or had made a vow to go; but what did such tributes of piety
amount to when compared to the tributes they themselves were compelled
to pay? We do not hesitate to affirm that, in the space of two hundred
years, the clergy paid towards the holy wars more money than would
have been required to purchase all their property; and thus the zeal
of ecclesiastics for the deliverance of the holy places was observed
perceptibly to cool; and it may be said that the indifference which
followed among Christian nations the ardour for the crusades, began by
the clergy. In Germany, and many other countries, their discontent
was carried so far, that at last the popes did not dare to trust the
preaching of crusades to the bishops, and only gave this mission to the
mendicant orders, who possessed nothing, and had nothing to pay for the
expeditions against the infidels.[110]

It has been said that the clergy took advantage of the crusades to
buy at low prices the property of the nobility, as, in our days, we
have seen many people take advantage of a revolution, to purchase at
a moderate price the property of the clergy themselves. We find, in
fact, examples of such acquisitions in the first crusades; but these
examples must have been more rare in the holy wars, of which the
clergy were obliged to pay the expenses.[111] The great advantage that
the clergy had over the nobility was, that the nobles were able to
pawn or alienate their possessions, and that ecclesiastics were never
allowed to pledge or alienate their property. Another advantage the
clergy possessed was, that they formed a body always animated by the
same spirit, and always governed by the same laws. Whilst everything
changed around them, they never changed. It was thus they resisted the
revolution which was effected in property.

We have seen, that in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries a
great number of monasteries were established. By that means wild,
uncultivated places became fertile lands; and these conquests made
over the desert added to the domains of the clergy. We must likewise
add, that the jurisdiction of the clergy, which every day made fresh
progress, was for them a source of wealth. It was in the nature of
things, as we have already remarked, that the most enlightened
class should become the richest. The clergy had therefore no need of
profiting by the ruin of the Crusaders in order to become rich; their
knowledge, their spirit of order and economy, _with the ascendancy they
possessed over the people_, offered them ample means for increasing or
preserving their possessions.

Everybody, besides, had reason to rejoice at seeing the clergy acquire
wealth; for this wealth belonged to everybody. In fact, every man could
enter into the clergy, and the clergy belonged to all families. This
order, so powerful in the middle ages, was as a natural link, as an
intermediate point, which drew together and united all the classes of
society. In the quarrels which jealousy sometimes raised between the
clergy and the nobility, the great vassals reproached the ecclesiastics
with being _the children of serfs_. It was not uncommon to see men
who had issued from the lowest class of the people, in the highest
functions of the Church; a certain proof that the clergy offered
every one a way by which he might elevate himself, and that they thus
assisted in reëstablishing the harmony destroyed by feudal inequality.

The clergy—such as our fathers saw it—only now exists in the memory
of men.[112] In proportion as this institution, with all the advantages
we have spoken of, shall be further removed from us, we shall perhaps
become the more aware of its value. There are things of which we judge
more favourably when memory recalls them to us, than when they are
present.

After a revolution which has ruined so many families, in which so many
hopes have been deceived,—at a time in which a numerous youth is
crowded in the confined circle of public employments,—in which the
divers professions, among the enlightened class, by no means suffice
for the vast number of the candidates,—let me ask whether the Church,
with its riches and its consolatory morality, would not be as a port
in the storm,—as a refuge always open for those to whom the world has
nothing to give? At a time in which everything is uncertain, moving,
and transitory,—in which no man is sure of his destiny, who but must
envy those men whose fate never changed,—who lived always in the same
manner,—who saw the present without complaining,—to whom the future
gave no uneasiness, and who might justly be compared to the young
ones of the birds, of which Scripture speaks? If I durst utter all my
thought—and I speak less in the name of religion than in the names of
philosophy and humanity—I should even regret those austere retreats,
open to piety, and consecrated by peace and prayer. There, at least,
a shelter was found from the passions which disturb society, as they
trouble the heart of man. Why, in fact, should there not be hospitals
for the miseries of the soul, as there are for other human infirmities?
Why are not they who have suffered from the storms of life, and whose
heart is torn by deep wounds, to find a refuge against their ills, as
well as those whom indigence overtakes, or as well as the war-mutilated
soldier? Who does not know that great revolutions, like great griefs,
inspire a desire for concealing existence, and seeking repose in
solitude? “When the storm growls,” says Pythagoras, “worship echo.” Let
us look back to the times which preceded the middle ages,—to those
times in which the world was ready to fall to pieces with the Roman
empire: it was at this deplorable epoch that the deserts of the Thebais
were peopled with pious cenobites, who were no longer able to support
the spectacle of human passions. It was not only simple and vulgar
men who flocked to the solitudes of Cetteus and Memphis, but learned
men, warriors,—men who had been seen in the courts of emperors.
Whilst society was shaken to its foundations,—whilst disorder and
corruption spread their baneful influence everywhere, elevated minds,
whom this state of things drove to despair, went to bury themselves in
retirement, embracing the altars of that Christian religion which was
the only support left to unfortunate virtue, and was the last hope of
civilization.

The swords of knights and the maxims of the clergy, as we have seen,
contended with advantage against the excesses of barbarism; but no
institution had yet attained sufficient consistence to guarantee
the security of European societies. In spite of all efforts for the
reëstablishment of order, anarchy still subsisted. In order to know
what, either in an age or a people, is the spirit of civilization, it
is sufficient to be acquainted with the progress that has been made
in that same age, or among that same people, in the administration of
justice. Of all the monuments the human mind can raise, a civil and
criminal code is that which requires the most extensive knowledge, and
the profoundest acquaintance with the passions of man.

In the middle ages, society, immersed in darkness, had lost the lessons
and examples of antiquity in all which concerned judicial order; and
found itself, in a manner, reduced to the experience of the barbarians.

When the barons usurped from the crown the right of administering
justice, there were as many jurisdictions in France as there
were lordships. Judicial administration then lost that spirit of
_wholeness_, that uniformity, which gives weight and rectitude to its
decisions. Judgment was no longer given but according to local customs,
or uncertain traditions.[113] When, in the seventeenth century, the
judicial customs and traditions which had been found in preceding ages
were collected, there were found two hundred and eighty-five of them;
a certain proof that in the times of which we speak, there could be no
fixed rule, and that anarchy had invaded the sanctuary of justice.

Royalty could not watch over seignorial jurisdictions, and the
ordinances of the kings were powerless out of the domains of the crown.
The great vassals had no mutual understanding that might modify or
regulate legislation. It is a remarkable thing that France, after the
decline of the empire of Charlemagne, remained more than two centuries
without recognising any authority to which it could carry its griefs
and its complaints,—without having, either in the person of the
monarch or the assemblies of the great, a power which could establish
regulations, repair injustices, correct abuses, and consecrate the
maxims of experience. If the kingdom was able to subsist for so long
a time in this state, have we not reason to believe that there is in
every society an unknown force, which defends that society against its
own excesses, and saves the people in spite of their passions,—in
spite of all which seems calculated to bring on their ruin?

To decide in civil and criminal causes, there was no other guide, no
other intelligence, but the instincts and the conscience of the judges.
These feeble means were not competent, in complicated cases, to assign
to actions their true intention, or to appreciate the language of
innocence or the denegations of crime. All matters were then treated
according to verbal conventions, and judged according to unwritten
testimonies. Words, often ill-interpreted, sometimes partially
effaced from the memory, frequently contradicted or falsified, could
not enlighten justice. Good faith was implored; the consciences of
witnesses and parties were appealed to; but it was too frequently
perjury that answered, and which commanded the decisions of the judges.
At length, it was believed that an infallible means was discovered for
detecting falsehood and fraud; an appeal was made from the consciences
of men to the justice of Heaven. He who was accused, he whose evidence
was contradicted, submitted to the ordeals of fire, boiling water, or
red-hot iron. It was believed that Heaven would not permit injustice,
and that it would rather suspend the laws of nature than the laws of
society.

These proofs, however, were abandoned to the vulgar; judicial combat
was the ordeal of nobles or of freemen. This species of justice, in
which every warrior had only his own valour as the arbiter of his
destiny, conformed exceedingly well with the military spirit of the age.

So barbarous a custom was generally adopted: not satisfied with having
recourse to judicial combat in criminal cases, civil questions were
subject to its decisions. A gentleman had not only a right to defy
his adversary, he might also challenge the witnesses themselves, and
force sometimes even the judges to descend with him into the arena.
Justice was then only seen in victory, or rather victory became the
sole justice. Thus the Franks, in the crusades, often expressed their
astonishment that God should sometimes allow the Mussulmans to conquer
the Christians.

The sword decided everything; the places where justice pronounced
her decrees resounded with the cries of fury and hatred. They were
stained, by turns, with the blood of the innocent or with the blood
of the guilty, as skill, strength, or fortune favoured the arms of
the combatants. In the face of such combats, how was it possible to
preserve the idea of justice or injustice? Must not ferocity of manners
have increased, and education become unnatural?

We ought, however, to remember the circumstances which brought
about this custom, and which may render it excusable in the eyes of
enlightened philosophy. In the impossibility in which the judges
often found themselves of ascertaining the truth or pronouncing with
certainty, fraud, perjury, and falsehood triumphed over the laws, and
threatened to invade the whole of society. No better means could be
discovered to prevent this misfortune than to terrify imposture and
perfidy, by the preparations, “pomp, and circumstance,” of a judicial
combat. Justice, being unable to reveal herself amidst the darkness
of barbarism, surrounded herself with terrible images, and would only
allow her sanctuary to be approached with mistrust and fear. The terror
which the idea even of a judicial combat inspired, the uncertainty of
such a judgment, must have prevented many contests, and that was a
great advantage. No other more certain means, besides, were to be found
to appease quarrels, which could not be prolonged without perilling
the whole of society. In an age in which the passions were mixed with
everything, it was doubtless important for society that justice should
terminate debates in an equitable manner; but it was likewise important
that these debates should terminate promptly.

At the first aspect, we only see in this custom a privilege and a
monstrous employment of physical force. But without this employment
of physical force, the world was perhaps likely to become the prey of
perjured, faithless men. We ought then to sigh less over this revolting
abuse than over the state of society in which it appeared necessary,
in order to prevent abuses still more revolting. It required much
trouble afterwards to reform the judicial combat. The prejudices most
difficult to be destroyed are those in which bravery and the point of
honour believe themselves interested. Neither the power of kings, nor
religion, nor philosophy, have been able to abolish duels among modern
nations; and duels, in some respects, are nothing but the justice which
was rendered by the sword in the middle ages.

We have not yet made known all the obstacles which the triumph of
justice met with in the manners and customs of these remote times. The
absence of laws caused great disorders; but the yoke of the laws was
more insupportable to the barons than anarchy itself. The confidence
which the barons felt in their arms, rendered them at least indifferent
to all kinds of legislation. In any society whatever, the men who have
power or force in their hands are seldom the first to appeal to laws;
because nobody can be unjust towards them with impunity, and they have
always the means of doing themselves justice.[114]

Judicial order, as we understand it now-a-days, could be nothing, in
the twelfth century, but an abstraction which did not enter into men’s
minds. The warlike nobility of Europe would have had nothing to do
with any kind of justice which did not present an image of war. The
barons could not form an idea that legislation might be a safeguard for
themselves as well as society. They only felt an injustice as they felt
a wound in the field of battle; and personal resentment was the only
motive which animated them to the pursuit of the guilty. Equity then
scarcely passed for a virtue, but revenge was a duty. There were no
laws against those who were unjust, but there were laws against those
who did not avenge themselves.

With these manners and this character, the barons were not able to
renounce the practice of private wars, which the Franks and other
barbarians had brought with them into Europe. Every noble who fancied
himself attacked in either his honour or his property, took arms to
defend his rights or avenge his quarrel. All the relations and vassals
of the belligerent parties were obliged to take part in the quarrel.
Fields were ravaged, towns and villages were burnt, and it was thus
they demanded or rendered justice. During many centuries Europe was
desolated by these intestine wars. Sanguinary discords, which were
transmitted from generation to generation, became an habitual state,
for which customs and regulations were invoked; and whilst society was
without laws, civil war had its jurisprudence.

It was not easy to remedy such vast disorders. How could force be
disarmed, and despoiled of a prerogative it seemed to prefer to all
other privileges? Society, such as it then was, had but one single
power capable of counterbalancing that of the warlike passions which
desolated Europe; this was the force of religious ideas and the
ascendancy of Christianity. The authority of councils was invoked
against private wars; the saints were made to speak; superstition
itself was called in; visions, revelations, and prodigies were had
recourse to. The Church put forth all its threats and launched all its
thunders. These means sometimes suspended the progress of the evil,
but the principle of discord always subsisted. It was not possible
to put an end to private wars, but they were at length suppressed
during certain days of the week; and all the good that such a powerful
religion could do was to bring about the adoption of the Truce of God.
It was here the crusades wonderfully seconded the zeal of the clergy.
Whenever war was declared against the Saracens, discords were all
at once appeased, as if by miracle, and Europe remained in profound
silence before the standard of the cross.

The efforts of the clergy, however, in conjunction with some other
favourable circumstances, were destined in the end to bring about the
triumph of justice and humanity. Before civil justice was established,
the Church possessed a holy jurisdiction which judged the faithful.
This justice stood in no need of pursuing the guilty; the guilty came
to give themselves up to its judgments: it was not blind, like human
justice; the most secret folds of the conscience developed themselves
before it: it met with no resistance, it excited no murmurs; those
whom it condemned, condemned themselves. To cause its laws to be
executed, and to sanction its decisions, it had the power of remorse,
the fear of an avenging God, the promises of heaven, the menaces of
hell. Such was the tribunal of penitence, which, in the absence of
civil laws, held the place sometimes of other tribunals, and watched
over public order, as a triumph of religion. A tribunal so formidable
necessarily increased the influence of the clergy, and contributed,
no doubt, to extend their jurisdiction even to affairs in which
evangelical morality was not at all interested. People, persuaded that
all justice comes from God, were likely to be led to believe that God
pronounced his least judgments by the organs of his ministers upon
earth. When the popes were reproached with interfering in the policy
of princes, they answered that the acts of that policy might be sins,
and thence these acts came under the pontifical jurisdiction. The
clergy usurped judicial authority in civil affairs, as the sovereign
pontiffs had usurped temporal authority.[115] In the middle ages the
clergy declared themselves arbiters of the just and the unjust; and
as their jurisdiction was much more favourable to humanity, more
conformable to reason than that of the barons, it made rapid progress.
Among the privileges which the popes granted to the Crusaders, that
of being judged by the ecclesiastical laws was placed in the first
rank. The clergy took advantage of the absence, the death, or the
ruin of the nobles who were gone to the crusades, to extend their
jurisdiction, as the commons availed themselves of this circumstance
to obtain their liberty, and kings to increase their power. At last
this jurisdiction became so powerful that it awakened the jealousy of
the feudal nobility. Towards the middle of the thirteenth century, the
nobles formed a league against the clergy, and in a manifesto, which
we still possess, they demanded that “they should render to Cæsar that
which belonged to Cæsar.” They forbade their vassals to appeal to the
ecclesiastical tribunals, except in cases of heresy, marriage, and
usury, and threatened delinquents with the loss of their property and
the mutilation of a member. “The clerks,” added they, “enriched at our
expense, shall be brought back to the state of the primitive church and
to a contemplative life, leaving to us the action which becomes us, and
presenting to us the miracles which we have not seen for a long time.”

As the influence of the clergy arose from Christianity, the nobles,
in their manifesto, wished to claim the advantage of having alone
converted the Gauls by their arms. All that they said in support of
this assertion gave reason to predict that they would not triumph in a
contest in which Victory would range herself on the side of knowledge
and intelligence.

This was not an ordinary war, but a veritable war of opinions; and as
the lords had, to sustain it, nothing but their swords, they were at
last obliged to renounce their pretensions.

The society of Europe, however, arrived at that period so fatal to
nations, at that crisis, almost always a sanguinary one, in which
new opinions and old opinions declare an obstinate war against each
other; in which all that is new ferments, and is agitated violently; in
which all that is ancient resists, and falls to pieces with a crash.
For a length of time old laws were powerless; and the laws which
were endeavoured to be established, had, in their execution, neither
the force that is acquired by habit, nor that which is conferred by
experience. A universal crisis was experienced throughout Europe; and
the West, troubled by revolutions and civil wars, was, for a moment,
upon the point of falling back into the darkness and chaos of the tenth
century.

It was at this period that was established in Germany the imperial
chamber, instituted for the purpose of appeasing discords and
repressing brigandage. In Arragon the tutelary authority of the
_justiza_ was created, who was armed against license with all the power
of a dictator. In all countries brotherhoods and associations were
formed against the excesses of anarchy. It was in France, above all,
that the necessity was felt to call in justice to the support of shaken
social order, and to place it under the safeguard of royalty. Royal
power was born, in some sort, amongst the perils and fears of society.
There is an instinct which, in moments of crisis, guides people towards
the authority which is to protect them; and this authority becomes
all-powerful, from the reason that its assistance is implored, and that
it is the object of all hopes.

Ecclesiastical jurisdiction had already dealt a mortal blow to
feudal justice. The study of the Roman law caused something of the
experience of the ancients to revive among nations scarcely escaped
from barbarism. A new judicial order sprang up in Europe, particularly
in France.[116] This judicial order was at first very complicated, in
consequence of that natural disposition of men of the pen and of the
robe to multiply forms in all affairs. To follow the clue through the
labyrinth of the new laws, the barons were deficient in knowledge, and
more particularly in patience. If it be true that lawyers complicated
legislation in order to remain the sole interpreters of it, their hopes
were not deceived; for they in the end took the places of the feudal
nobles in judicial functions.

It is true that seignorial justices were not abolished; but an appeal
was permitted from their decisions to the judgment of the crown. There
were, besides, cases in which the justice of the barons was found
incompetent, and as this incompetence was almost always judged of
by the jurisdiction of the king, the latter finished by attracting
to itself most of the causes of any weight or importance. As it is
otherwise important that justice should be protected by a force that
can make it respected, as the power of the barons declined, and as
that of the king increased daily, the royal jurisdiction prevailed,
and custom sanctioned the maxim that all justice emanates from the
king. When once this maxim was recognised and proclaimed in all
the provinces, Beaumanier was right in saying, “that the king was
sovereign over everything, and that he had by right the general
guardianship of the kingdom.”

It was at this period arose that French magistracy which afterwards
became so eminent. The parliaments exhibited the frankness and loyalty
of old times, united with the intelligence of modern times. They
sometimes defended the rights of the people against the crown, and were
often a buckler for the crown against factions. Perhaps their roots did
not strike deeply enough into the society whose rights they defended.
The fundamental laws of the kingdom had neither regulated their rights,
nor fixed with precision the limits of their power. Their authority
was due less to written constitutions than to that want of justice
which is felt among civilized people, than to that supreme ascendancy
which they almost always obtain whose function it is to be exponents of
the law. We have seen parliaments perish amidst public disorders, for
which they themselves gave the imprudent signal. They saw the faults
of administration, but they were deficient in positive knowledge to
point out the proper remedy: they appealed to the people, and factions
answered; they invoked liberty, and the revolution burst forth. Now,
when this magistracy no longer exists among us, and that it can have
no place in the order of things which events have given birth to, it
appears to us the moment is come for everybody to be just towards it,
and to praise that noble disinterestedness, that enlightened firmness,
that inflexible probity, which formed its principal character. “It is
for the observer of the present period,” says an English writer, “and
not for the historian of past times, to decide if those virtues which
distinguished the ancient French magistracy are sufficiently common
now-a-days, not to be remembered with great praise, and exhibited to
our contemporaries as useful examples.”

In the revolution which was effected, we are astonished that the barons
showed so little foresight; they opposed the privileges of an order of
things which no longer existed, when, without their intervention and
without their concurrence, a new order of things was established; the
greater that was their need of union to defend themselves, the more
obstinacy they showed for maintaining the too fatal privilege of making
war upon each other. The habit of warlike and feudal manners made
them prefer to all other functions the occupation of arms, which they
considered, with reason, as the most glorious career; but which ruined
them, kept them in their ignorance, and drove them from affairs, whilst
others enriched themselves in peaceful employments, exercised their
faculties usefully, and employed themselves exclusively with power.
In the end, the nobility, after the most generous sacrifices, became
nothing but an aristocracy without action in the government, whilst
those who lent a hand to the administration became really the masters.

The revolutions we have just described have made us for a moment
forget the crusades; the holy wars, however, may be reckoned
among the causes which ameliorated legislation. The departure of
the Crusaders gave occasion for a number of actions; precautions
against fraud were multiplied; public notaries were called in; the
use of charters,—called _chartres chirographaires_, or _chartres
parties_,—was adopted, or rather revived. We have already said that
many regulations were made to limit the numbers of the Crusaders, and
these regulations were so many laws added to those which existed. The
Crusaders, whilst passing through distant countries, might remark
many wise customs, which they brought back into their own country.
Villehardouin informs us with what astonishment the French nobles, on
their arrival at Venice, beheld the senate, the doge, and the people
deliberating in their presence. This spectacle could not fail to
enlighten them. When the Latins were masters of Constantinople, they
there became acquainted with the legislation of Greece; in Palestine,
the Assizes of Jerusalem gave them an idea of a legislation less
imperfect than their own; the code which for a long time governed
the Christian colonies led Louis IX. to think of making a collection
of laws, which he did not, it is true, put in practice, but which no
doubt spread much useful information. The example of St. Louis, and the
encouragement that jurisconsults received on his return from Egypt,
contributed to create among the people the love of justice; and this
love of justice, which began to be felt among all classes, was the best
guarantee of a nascent civilization.

Skilful writers have gone over before us this epoch, so abundant in
great events and in lessons of policy. They have shown how royalty
rose from the bosom of disorder; how legislation progressively
prevailed over anarchy; and how several states of Europe—particularly
France—attained that degree of strength and splendour in which we
have seen them during the eighteenth century. There would remain
but very little for us to say, after the great publicists who have
preceded us, if recent revolutions had not broken forth to enlighten
us. The experience of the present times has thrown a new light over
past ages; and we are better acquainted with the nature and origin of
old institutions, since we have seen them sink into ruins. The tree of
our ancient monarchy has not been able to resist the concussions which
have shaken society; its branches have strewed the earth, and its roots
have been laid bare. It then became easy for us to see by what secret
conduits strength and life had been circulated; how had grown, and how
had fallen,—

“That tree whose head approached to heaven,
And whose feet touched the empire of the dead.”[117]

After having gone through the different classes of society, and shown
the origins of our institutions during the crusades, we are about to
see what was, at the same period, the progress of navigation, commerce,
industry, the sciences, letters, the arts, and general knowledge.

Before the twelfth century, the seas of Europe and Asia, with the
exception of the Mediterranean, were scarcely frequented even by
the nations who dwelt upon their shores. At the period of the first
crusades, that which formed the kingdom of France had but two or three
ports upon the coast of Normandy, and had not a single one upon the
ocean, or the Mediterranean, when, in the seventh crusade, Louis IX.
caused that of Aigues-Mortes to be dug.[118] England was scarcely more
advanced; that kingdom abandoned the navigation of the seas which
surrounded it to pirates. It appeared that the world was not yet
large enough for the ambition and genius of the English nation, which
at the present day dominates over all the known seas. Some cities
on the shores of the Baltic, of Holland, Flanders, and Spain, made
maritime expeditions, but which scarcely deserve to be described in
the history of the crusades. When the crusades began, the spirit of
devotion, united with that of commerce, gave a new and more extended
direction to the voyages and labours of navigators. The inhabitants of
Denmark appeared in the seas of Syria; and Norwegians, who came by sea,
assisted at the taking of Sidon. Citizens of Lubeck and Bremen were
present at the siege of Ptolemaïs. From all the coasts of the West,
vessels and fleets transported pilgrims, provisions, and arms into the
kingdom of Jerusalem and the other Christian principalities established
in Asia by the victories of the Crusaders.

Thus navigators from all countries met in the seas of the East. It
was, in some sort, under the auspices of the cross, that advantageous
relations began to be established among the maritime nations of Europe.
At the commencement of the twelfth century, a fleet of Pisans, joined
with some other Italians, came to assist the Arragonese in conquering
the Balearic Isles. The navigators of Italy were so little acquainted
with the seas of Spain, that they took the coasts of Arragon for the
country of the Moors. This first alliance between distant nations was
the work of a crusade preached by Pope Pascal III., and seconded by a
great number of knights of Provence and Languedoc.

The navigators of Lubeck, Bremen, and Denmark, after having tried their
strength in long voyages, took advantage of the experience they had
gained, to visit the unknown seas of the Baltic. These new enterprises
presented to their pious zeal and their ambition a nearer sea, and
savage peoples which they might bring under their faith, and make
subservient to their commercial views. Maritime expeditions were mixed
with the crusades preached against nations still living in a state of
paganism. At the aspect of the cross and the flag of navigators, rich
cities sprang up, and barbarous regions began to be acquainted with the
blessings of civilization.

It was at this period that navigation opened for itself a new career,
and saw the theatre of its useful labours expand. Nothing could have
favoured its progress like the communication that was then established
between the Baltic, the Mediterranean, the Spanish Ocean, and the seas
of the north. By uniting nations in pursuit of the same advantages,
it multiplied their relations, their ties, and their interests, and
redoubled their emulation. In this career thus opened to all the
nations of Europe, practical knowledge became rectified, was much
increased, and spread everywhere; the configuration of coasts, the
position of capes, ports, bays, isles, &c. &c., were all ascertained;
the depth of the ocean was fathomed; the direction of winds, currents,
and tides was observed; much information was gained upon all the
points of hydrography, and very soon that ignorance of the eleventh
and twelfth centuries was dispersed, which had occasioned so many
shipwrecks, that the chroniclers of the times of the first crusades, as
they tremblingly recount them, can only ascribe them to the anger of
Heaven.

We would here speak of the mariner’s compass, if the period of its
invention could be ascertained clearly. A passage of James of Vitry,
which we have elsewhere given, does not permit us to doubt that the
properties of the loadstone were known in the time of the crusades, and
that navigators derived great assistance from it in their long voyages;
but, on the other hand, there is nothing to prove that the use of the
mariner’s compass was then general. We may believe that so valuable a
discovery was still a secret for the vulgar, and that those who were
in possession of this secret, only sought to profit by it for their
own interest, without thinking of the advantages that might be drawn
from it for the progress of navigation. We will add that that which has
happened to the mariner’s compass, has happened also to most of the
inventions of industry, of which history can rarely assign the epochs,
because their authors, from a spirit of cupidity or jealousy, have not
only not promulgated them, but have concealed them carefully from the
knowledge of their contemporaries.

Naval architecture was much improved during the crusades. The vessels
were greatly enlarged, to enable them to contain the multitudes of
pilgrims to be transported. The dangers incidental to long voyages,
caused the ships destined for the East to be constructed in a more
solid manner. The art of setting up several masts in the same vessel,
the art of multiplying the sails, and of disposing them so as to
enable the ship to sail against the wind, were the happy fruit of the
emulation which then animated navigators.

Thus the activity and the genius of man triumphed over all obstacles,
commanded the elements, and took possession of the empire of the sea.
But this empire, like that of the land, was, in the middle ages, a prey
to brigandage and violence; tempests, contrary winds, shipwrecks, were
not the only evils to be apprehended in long voyages. On every sea no
right was known but the right of the strongest, and the absence of a
maritime code added greatly to the perils of distant navigation.

The necessity for a legislation that might assure the interests and the
freedom of navigators was strongly felt. It was Spain that furnished
the first model of one. At the commencement of the twelfth century a
code of maritime rights was drawn up by the ancient _prudhommes_[119]
of the Sea of Barcelona. The Venetians adopted it in an assembly held
at St. Sophia, in 1255. This code was afterwards adopted by the Pisans
and Genoese, and, under the name of the Consulat of the Sea, became the
common law or right of the eastern seas. Another code, published at
first by Eleanor of Guienne, and afterwards by Richard Cœur-de-Lion,
under the title of “Rolls of Oleron,” obtained the assent of several
maritime nations, and was at last accepted in all the seas of the West.

Protected by this code, navigators were enabled to gather the fruit of
their long labours, and soon disputed advantageously the empire of the
Mediterranean with the infidels. If Italy and several other countries
of the West escaped the yoke of the Saracens, they owed their safety
more to the superiority of their fleets than to that of their armies.

I have spoken in the preceding book of the discovery of America, and
of the passage to India by the Cape of Good Hope. It is probable
that, without the crusades, the genius of navigators would, although
later, have surmounted the immense space and numberless dangers that
separated the Baltic and the Mediterranean from the Indian Ocean,
and the Old World from the New. We may at least say that the distant
expeditions and the perilous enterprises undertaken beneath the banners
of the cross, prepared the way for the last prodigies of navigation,
by opening everywhere new routes for industry, and, above all, by
favouring the progress of commerce, the natural and necessary link
between the divers nations and the different countries of the globe.

Each climate has its productions; and this diversity of riches creates
for men an obligation for exchanges. This obligation for exchanges
produces communication among all nations, so that in time the most
widely-separated regions cannot remain unknown to each other. It may
truly be said, that Providence has thus placed various productions in
different climates, that it has denied to some countries what it has
granted to others, to create for men dispersed over the face of the
earth, the necessity for reciprocally seeking each other, for trading
to supply their mutual wants, for communicating their knowledge, and
for marching together towards civilization.

In the middle ages, the indolent and effeminate Greeks neglected
to bring into the West the merchandises of Asia. The Saracens only
anchored on the coasts of Europe, to bring thither the scourges of war.
The commerce of the West went to seek that which was not brought to it;
and frequent voyages to the East were all for the profit of the West.

A long time before the crusades, the merchandises of India and Asia
had arrived in Europe, sometimes by land, crossing the Greek empire,
Hungary, and the country of the Bulgarians; but more frequently by the
Mediterranean, in which were all the ports of Italy. These routes were
both made more familiar by the holy wars, and from that time nothing
could stop the rapid progress of commerce, protected in its march by
the standard of the cross.

Most of the maritime cities of the West not only got rich by furnishing
Europe with the productions of the East, but they found further a
considerable advantage in the transport of pilgrims and Christian
armies. Fleets followed along the coasts of the countries in which the
Crusaders were fighting, and sold them the munitions of war and the
provisions of which they always stood in need. Thus commerce brought
back into Europe a part of the treasures which the princes and barons,
who ruined themselves to go and fight the infidels, carried into Asia.

All the wealth of the maritime cities of Syria, and even of Greece,
belonged to merchants of the West. They were the masters of a great
part of the Christian cities of Asia; we know what was the share of the
Venetians after the taking of Constantinople. They possessed all the
isles of the Archipelago, and half of Byzantium. The Greek empire was
as another Venice, with its laws, its fleets, and its armies.

The Latins soon lost Constantinople, Jerusalem, and most of the
countries which submitted to their arms. Commerce, more fortunate,
preserved its conquests after the crusades. The city of Tana, built at
the mouth of the Tanais, became for Venice a colony, which opened for
her useful relations with Persia and Tartary, and which dominated in
the markets of Tauris, Trebizond, Bagdad, and Bassora. Some Genoese,
assembled in a little city of the Crimea,—Caffa, at the time even when
the Turks were threatening Europe, employed themselves in working the
mines of the Caucasus, and receiving the treasures of India by way of
Astracan. European commerce established stores even among nations that
made cruel war against the Christians. The terror which the Mamelukes
inspired did not prevent colonies of merchants establishing themselves
in Egypt. Africa, particularly the coast of the Mediterranean, was
all subservient to their mercantile ambition, and the places which
St. Louis had not been able to conquer, became tributaries to their
industry.

Whilst the commerce of all parts of the world was thus placed in the
hands of a few maritime cities, many of the great kingdoms of Europe
were still strangers to it. England, which had no other wealth but its
wools, gladly received in its capital the merchandises of Asia, brought
thither by Italian and Spanish merchants. The cities of France took but
little part in the commerce of the East. The crusades were the work
of the French; others gathered the fruits of them. Marseilles was, in
the middle ages, the only French city which kept up any relation with
distant nations. This city founded by the Phocians, for the sake of
the commerce with the Gauls, had never ceased to turn its eyes towards
the places of its origin, and have commercial relations with Syria
and Greece. Spain, whose industry developed itself early, took more
advantage from the crusades, and, towards the end of the holy wars, the
Spaniards had warehouses upon all the coasts of Asia.

No country, however, derived more advantage from the trade of the East
than Italy. This country, which dominated over the Mediterranean, and
which lay open to all parts of the known world, was placed in the most
favourable position. This position, which had formerly facilitated
the conquests of the Romans, assisted the nations of Italy in their
new enterprises, and subdued the world to their speculations, as it
had subdued it to their arms. Whilst their fleets set out for the
East, they sent into Europe, not legions and proconsuls, as Rome had
done, but caravans of merchants, who subdued the provinces they passed
through to the calculations and the wants of commerce. These merchants
disposed of, by their industrious traffic, all the money which then
circulated in the West. In all countries they had numerous colonies and
considerable establishments. Europe has no great cities in which the
name of the Lombards, given to a street, to a quarter, does not, even
at the present day, attest the long sojourn of the Italian merchants.

We cannot help admiring this power of commerce; but it had likewise its
principle of destruction. What rivalries, what jealous passions, did it
not give birth to daily! Pacific conquests were contended for without
ceasing, swords in hand. In this struggle many cities succumbed; Pisa
was destroyed by Genoa; Genoa, in her turn, could not maintain its
rivalry against Venice. Another rock for these commercial powers, was
the mobility of the commerce which had elevated them, and which carried
unceasingly its favours and its gifts from one place to another. If
commerce changed its route or its direction, that was quite enough to
make a city prosper, or to precipitate its fall. In the middle ages,
a crowd of cities disappeared, without discord or war having at all
contributed to their ruin. It appeared as if fortune took a pleasure
in destroying her own work, and as if she disdained on that account to
associate herself with human passions.

It is not possible to separate the progress of industry and even of
agriculture from that of commerce. To ascertain what industry and
agriculture could gain by relations with the East, it would perhaps be
sufficient to ascertain in what state these two sources of prosperity
then were among the Orientals. Among so many travellers, there were,
doubtless, some who had an interest in observing the usages and
practices of the distant countries they visited. We know that in the
expeditions of the Crusaders, such as were masters of a trade, or were
skilful in a mechanical art, were enrolled in preference to others.
These industrious pilgrims did not always make a voyage barren of
advantages for their country; and in those holy wars, in which the
knights of the cross only sought victory and renown, industry, if I
may venture to say so, had also its crusade, whose peaceful trophies
consisted in precious discoveries, stolen from the Greeks or the
Saracens, and in the happy imitation of that which they had admired in
the arts of the East.

The Saracens had manufactures of stuffs before the crusades. At
Damascus, and in the cities of Egypt, metals were worked with greater
perfection than in the West. Old chronicles inform us that the
Christians of Palestine went sometimes to Damascus to purchase arms.
Joinville relates that, being on a pilgrimage to our lady of Tortosa,
he bought at Tripoli some camlets, fabricated in that city. He sent
some pieces of them to Queen Marguerite, who, he tells us, at first
took them for relics, and fell on her knees to receive them; but upon
discovering her mistake arose, saying, “Mischief upon the seneschal!
who has made me kneel to his camlets.”[120] Joinville was directed by
Louis IX. to purchase a quantity of this stuff, which proves that the
manufactory in which it was fabricated had some reputation.

There were at this period, in the same city of Tripoli, and in several
cities of Greece, a great number of silk-looms, the produce of which
must have excited great attention in the merchants and pilgrims who
visited the East. About the middle of the twelfth century, Roger II.,
king of Sicily, caused several of these looms to be transported to
Palermo; this was the fruit of an expedition to the coasts of Greece.
The mulberry-tree flourished and multiplied under the beautiful sky of
Italy, as well as under that of the Morea, and this useful conquest
gave the Sicilians the means of soon surpassing the industry of the
Greeks. The principal workshop was placed in the palace of the kings,
as if to display the richness and magnificence of this new art.

Many useful inventions came to us at this period from the countries
of the East. Some writers affirm that windmills were known in Europe
before the crusades; but we should remember that they might have been
due to the early pilgrimages into Asia, which it is so difficult to
separate, upon such matters, from the holy wars.[121]

Tyre was at this time famous for its glass. The sand found in its
vicinity gave to the fabrication of glass a perfection unknown in other
countries. The use of glass was much more common in Palestine than in
the West. The Venetians obtained from Tyre the idea of their beautiful
works in glass, so celebrated in the middle ages.

The Crusaders, as has been seen in this history, always evinced great
surprise at witnessing the explosion of the Greek fire. But what
appears very strange, they never seemed to envy the Saracens this great
advantage. The Frank warriors, in the field of battle, preferred the
sword and lance to a means of fighting which, in their minds, took away
something from personal bravery. It is not at all improbable, however,
that the Greek fire, in the end, furnished the idea of gunpowder; an
invention fatal to humanity, but which placed a formidable weapon in
the hands of European society, when threatened by the Turks and Tartars.

We have already spoken of the maize, or Turkish wheat, sent into Italy
by Boniface of Montferrat, in the fourth crusade. The Damascus plum was
brought at the same time into Europe by a duke of Anjou, who visited
Jerusalem. Our gardens owe to the holy wars the ranunculus, so prized
by Orientals, and shalots, which take their name from Ascalon; the
knowledge, or rather the use of saffron, alum, and indigo, in Europe,
may be traced to the times of the crusades.

We may remember with what delight the Crusaders saw for the first time
the sugar-canes of the territory of Tripoli. The plant was transported
to Sicily, about the middle of the twelfth century. It is not correct,
however, to say that it passed from thence into the new world. If
the Spaniards afterwards transported the sugar-cane to the island
of Madeira, we may believe they found it in the kingdom of Granada,
whither the Moors had brought it from Africa. But it is also probable
that notice was only taken of this plant because the taste for sugar
was widely spread, and that the substance, which was brought from
Egypt, became an important branch of commerce. It is thus we may render
honour to the crusades.

Natural history, which is connected with the progress of industry and
agriculture, was enriched likewise by some useful notions. Distant
climates not only exchanged their vegetable productions, but the
crusades procured for Europe an acquaintance with several animals of
Africa and Asia. We have mentioned that the Mamelukes of Egypt sent
Louis IX. an elephant, of which the French monarch made a present to
the king of England. A short time after the first expedition of Louis
IX., Bibars sent to Mainfrey, son of Frederick II., several Mogul
prisoners, with their horses, which were of Tartar breed. Among the
Oriental productions which the Egyptian ambassadors were directed to
present to the king of Sicily, was a giraffe, an animal that had never
till that time been seen in the West.

The curious circumstances which we could further produce, would
add nothing to the opinion that must be already entertained of the
happy influence of the crusades upon the progress of agriculture and
industry. The riches of Asia, when brought into Europe, soon gave birth
to a desire for the cultivation of the arts which embellish life, and
of the sciences which double the faculties of man.

In the tenth century, architecture consisted in the construction of
towers, ramparts, and fortresses. In the habitations of the great,
everything was sacrificed to the necessity of providing defences
against an enemy; nothing could be afforded to comfort or magnificence.
The dwellings of the people, even in cities, scarcely protected them
from the injuries of weather or the intemperance of seasons. The
only architectural monuments were those which devotion raised to
ancestors. Before magnificent palaces for princes, or convenient houses
for the rich were thought of, edifices consecrated to religion were
constructed. It is scarcely possible to enumerate the churches and
monasteries built in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. According to
the opinion of the time, the most certain mode of expiating sins, was
to build a church or a monastery. Thus architectural monuments arose at
the voice of repentance, and religious inspirations revived, in some
sort, the prodigies which fabulous antiquity attributed to the lyre of
Amphion.

In every city, in every town, the inhabitants made it their pride
to ornament their cathedral, and the altars at which they invoked
the saint whom the parish had chosen for its patron. It may be said
that there was something like patriotism in this pious zeal; for the
basilic, or paternal church, was then the most noble and the most
sensible image of the country.

At the commencement of the crusades, there existed a religious
confraternity composed of men practised in the labours of building;
they travelled about the world, offering their services to the faithful
to build or repair churches. Another confraternity was formed with the
useful design of constructing bridges for pilgrims and travellers. A
chapel or an oratory reminded passengers that the bridge they were
crossing was the work of charity.

The clergy, who were rich, and could only display their opulence in
buildings, made it their glory to erect churches. To complete their
work, they called in the aid of painting and sculpture, which, like
architecture, owed their first encouragement to piety, and whose
earliest masterpieces were consecrated to the ornamenting of the altars
of the Christian religion.

Nothing was more common than to see noble Crusaders, on their departure
for Palestine, or on their return to the West, found a monastery or a
church. Several pilgrims are named, who, on coming back from Jerusalem,
employed their treasures in constructing churches, the form of which
might offer them an image of the holy sepulchre they had visited.
The treasures conquered from the infidels were often appropriated
to such buildings. Before the first crusade, some cities of Italy
undertook an expedition into Africa, and the spoils were reserved
for the ornamenting of churches. We read in an Italian chronicle,
that the Pisans ceded to the Greek emperor Calo-John several cities
which belonged to them in Asia Minor, upon the condition that this
emperor would defray the expenses necessary for the building of the
archbishop’s palace at Pisa, and ornamenting the cathedral of Palermo.

During the crusades, the sight of the monuments of architecture which
were admired in the East, must have awakened the emulation of the
western pilgrims. Nothing could exceed the surprise of the Crusaders
at beholding the city of Constantine. Foucher de Chartres exclaimed in
his enthusiasm: “Oh, what a vast and beautiful city is Constantinople!”
The German historian Gunther likewise expresses his admiration, and
says that such magnificence could not be believed if it were not seen.
The marshal of Champagne relates that the French knights, on seeing
the beautiful towers and the superb palaces of Byzantium, could not
persuade themselves _that there could be such a rich city in all the
world_!

Italy, which derived such advantages from its relations with the
East, profited greatly by the masterpieces of Greece. The inhabitants
of Rome, and of several other cities founded and embellished by the
Romans, had before them remains of antiquity that might serve them as
models. The riches which their commerce brought them furnished them
with the means of encouraging industry and the arts, which assist
in the embellishment of cities. The cities of Italy,—Venice in
particular,—had palaces and sumptuous edifices before the crusades.
In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the taste for beautiful
architecture changed the face of Italy, and spread by degrees
throughout the rest of Europe.

We must add, however, that the fine arts, with the exception of
architecture, owed very little to the frequent communications with the
East. Painting was despised among the Mussulmans, to whom the Koran
forbade the reproduction of the images of man or of animated beings.
The Latins likewise, as our readers may remember, after the taking of
Constantinople, destroyed most of the monuments raised by the genius
of sculpture, and converted the masterpieces of Phidias and Praxiteles
into pieces of coin.

The indolent and silent character of the orientals was not calculated
to carry music to perfection, as this art bespeaks a lively and warm
imagination in a people; and the Greeks had for a long time lost the
secret of those melodious songs which, in the times of Linus and
Orpheus, charmed the heights of Rhodope and the woods of Mænalus. The
history of music, then, has very little to do with that of the holy
wars. When Italy saw the fine arts revive, they sprang up as a natural
production of the soil, as plants indigenous to the climate; they owed
their splendour to the prosperous state of society, and followed, as a
consequence of the opulence and luxury which commerce and industry had
produced.[122]

The revival of the fine arts announced that of letters. But if it be
true that letters owed a part of their progress to the influence of
the crusades, it must be confessed that the Crusaders did not always
show themselves disposed to profit by them for themselves: nothing can
exceed the ignorance of the Crusaders who then set out for the East.
History informs us that after the taking of Jerusalem, they burnt
at Tripoli a library which contained the most precious monuments of
oriental literature: at the taking of Constantinople, a conflagration
devoured the literary treasures of ancient Greece. The Crusaders beheld
this misfortune with so much indifference, that not one of their
chronicles makes mention of it, and posterity would have been ignorant
of it but for the eloquent complaints of Nicetas.

The science which gained most by these distant expeditions was
doubtless geography. Before the crusades, this science was quite
unknown. Countries, the least distant from each other, had no
intercommunication. Burgundy was scarcely known at Paris; in Burgundy
Paris was considered as a very remote place. The Crusaders who
followed Peter the Hermit were not acquainted with the names of
the cities of Germany and Hungary which they passed through. They
experienced a defeat at Mersbourg, and the contemporary chronicles
that speak of it content themselves with calling the Hungarian city
_Malleville_, or the city of misfortune.

If the Franks scarcely knew their own country, what must have been
their ignorance of the countries of the East? We may judge by the
necessity they felt for taking their guides from among the Greeks, whom
they mistrusted, and by their extreme embarrassment whenever these
guides abandoned them. Several armies perished from want of knowing the
places to which victory conducted them. Most of the chroniclers knew no
more about the matter than the Crusaders; and this it is that renders
it so difficult to follow them in Asia Minor and Syria.

One most remarkable circumstance is, that out of more than two hundred
chronicles that speak of Egypt, we have not been able to find more
than one that makes mention of the Pyramids. James of Vitry, who
sojourned for a long time in Syria, and who appears to have possessed
as much knowledge as was then common to the learned, repeats, in his
descriptions of the East, the fables of Herodotus; such as the history
of the Amazons and that of the phœnix. We can scarcely forbear laughing
at the simple credulity of Joinville, who tells us gravely, in his
memoirs, that the trees of the terrestrial paradise produce cinnamon,
ginger, and cloves, and that these spices are fished out of the waters
of the Nile, whither they have been carried by the winds.

The Crusaders, constantly engaged in fighting, never entertained
the idea of making themselves acquainted with the countries subdued
by their arms. Nevertheless, in consequence of them, religion and
commerce,—the one led by the desire of spreading the Gospel, the
other by the hopes of gaining wealth, opened some new routes, and
gained useful notions concerning the East during the crusades. The
missionaries sent by the court of Rome and by St. Louis travelled over
the vast regions of Asia, and commerce either followed or went before
them in these distant journeys. The accounts of Rubruquis, Asselin,
John Plan Carpin, and Marco Paolo, contain observations of which the
truth and correctness are recognised at the present day.

We may add that the Crusaders, who went from all the countries of
Europe, became acquainted with each other beneath the standard of the
cross. Nations were no longer foreign to each other; which dissipated
the ignorance in which they had been regarding the names of the cities
and provinces of the West.

The geographical charts of this period neither give the configuration
of the globe, nor the extent of countries, nor the position or limits
of emperors; they merely trace, by vague designations, that which
struck travellers most forcibly,—such as the curiosities of each
country, the animals, the buildings, and the various dresses of men.
We have seen a map of the world, which is attached to the chronicle
of St. Denis, and which appears to have been made in the thirteenth
century: we do not find, as in modern maps, the names of the four
cardinal points set down, but on the four sides are written the names
of the principal winds, to the number of twelve. Jerusalem, according
to the opinion of the time, is placed in the centre of the three parts
of the known world; a large edifice surmounted by a cross represents
the holy city. Around this queen of cities, the author of the map has
figured, by other edifices, the cities of Palestine, Syria, Egypt,
&c.: the distances are marked without any attention to exactness; all
appears thrown at random on the paper: this confused mass of edifices
or houses, seems to be less a representation of the universe than the
shapeless picture of a great city, built without plan or regularity.

We may judge by this how completely geography was then in its infancy;
but, at the same time, it renders it evident that it was not quite
neglected, as till that time it had been. Thus, we have a right to
believe they would not stand still there, and that geographical
knowledge would soon advance. In the fourteenth century, the countries
of the East were already much better known, if we may judge by the
chart which Sanuti presented to the pope, and which may be seen in the
collection of the historians of the crusades by Bengars.

The sciences most useful to man, such as medicine, might have made some
progress during the crusades, if the Crusaders had profited by the
knowledge of the Orientals. In medicine particularly, the Arabians had
more positive knowledge than the Latins. At the siege of Ptolemaïs,
we have seen that Saladin sent his physicians to Richard; but we do
not learn that the king of England sent his to Saladin, when he fell
ill. In the first crusade of St. Louis, the physicians who accompanied
the army of the Crusaders understood nothing of the scurvy and other
epidemic diseases, which exercised such ravages in the camp of the
Christians. Their ignorance was not less fatal than the contagion: when
Louis IX. and his warriors became the prisoners of the Mussulmans, the
diseases which desolated them ceased all at once, because they were no
longer attended by their own physicians, but were placed under the care
of the Arabians.

The East then furnished Europe with several processes and remedies from
which modern medicine, for a length of time, derived great advantage.
Cassia and senna came from Asia, and became known in the West at the
period of the crusades. Theriaca, which played so great a part in the
medicine of the middle ages, was brought from Antioch to Venice. Robert
of Normandy, on his return from the Holy Land, after the taking of
Jerusalem, obtained from the school of Salerno a collection of Hygeian
precepts, which became proverbs among all the nations of Europe.

And yet these discoveries, and this knowledge of the Orientals, did
not much enlighten the West in the art of curing. Properly to receive
lessons of experience of this kind, preliminary studies were necessary,
and the physicians of Europe were then too ignorant to profit by the
learning of the Arabians. At this period, religious charity raised a
great number of open asylums for suffering humanity. But this charity,
however admirable, when its object was to attend the sick, and comfort
them in their sufferings, knew but very little of the symptoms or the
character of the numberless diseases which attack the life of man. It
may be safely said, that during the crusades, we received from the East
many more serious diseases than true instruction in medicine. We know
that there were numerous lazar-houses established in Europe in the time
of the crusades; but we know nothing of the remedies employed for the
cure of leprosy. Isolation appears to have been the only curative or
preservative means known for this malady, which many learned physicians
now look upon as mere prejudice. The spirit of devotion richly endowed
lepers, without doing anything for their cure. Leprosy, in the end,
disappeared without the assistance of medicine, and the property
bestowed upon lazar-houses was transferred to the hospitals; which was
advantageous to humanity, and may be set down as one of the benefits of
the crusades.[123]

We will say nothing of the other sciences, which owed still less than
geography and medicine to the holy wars.

The Saracens of Syria were very little enlightened in the middle ages.
In the East, the state of knowledge, like everything else, depended
upon the reign of a great prince; whilst this prince reigned, knowledge
flourished by his influence; at his death, everything returned to
darkness, as the natural state of countries governed by Islamism.[124]

The Franks gained more by their commerce with the Greeks than by that
with the Saracens. The Crusaders established continual relations
between the cities of Italy and the empire of Byzantium. Some sparks of
the genius of the Greeks were glimmering in Italy before the taking of
Constantinople by the Turks.

A college for young Greeks was established at Paris in the reign of
Philip Augustus. In the thirteenth century universities flourished at
Bologna, Paris, and Salamanca, in which the Greek language was taught;
and later, the Oriental languages were added, by a decree of the
council of Vienna.

We find in a chronicle of St. Denis these remarkable words:—“This
year, 1257, William, a physician, brought some Greek books from
Constantinople.” Thus, the arrival of some volumes from Greece was an
event worthy of being recorded, and the importance attached to it,
already announced the disposition of men’s minds.

When the Turks became masters of Constantinople, the learned, exiled
from their country, came to establish themselves in Italy, where the
Greek muses formed an alliance with the Latin muses. The venerable
interpreters of antiquity were hailed everywhere with eagerness,
and the communication of their knowledge was repaid by generous
hospitality. Among the distinguished men to whom the muses of ancient
Greece owed an honourable protection, we must not forget Nicholas V.,
who, as the head of the Christians of the West, excommunicated the
Greek Church, and, as a scholar, seemed to have vowed a worship to the
genius of Homer and Plato.[125] Printing, which had then recently been
invented, was employed to preserve the literary treasures brought from
the East, and made them for ever safe from the scythe of Time, the
furies of war, or the hands of barbarians. The Iliad and the Odyssey
found readers in places which had inspired the Æneid; the orations of
Demosthenes were again read amid the wrecks of the forum, where the
learned might believe they still listened to the voice of Cicero. The
genius of the Italians, kindled by the masterpieces of ancient Rome
and of old Athens, produced fresh masterpieces; and Italy presented a
phenomenon which the world will, perhaps, never see again,—that of a
nation which, in the space of a few centuries, obtained twice the palm
of literature in two different languages.

It was from Constantinople we received the philosophy of Aristotle.
We can scarcely say to what extent the true friends of intelligence
ought to congratulate themselves on this head. Aristotle had disciples,
partisans, and martyrs; the philosopher of Stagyra was very near
being preferred to the Bible; the contemners of Aristotle were called
_Biblici_. At that period a mania for subtleties was introduced into
the schools, which dishonoured the teaching of philosophy. Reason was
no longer studied in the mind of man, but in a book; nature was no
longer studied in the universe, but in Aristotle. The schools became
like fencing-matches. In an age in which everything was decided by
violence, the human mind wished to have its species of warfare; so
that victory in most affairs was considered justice; and became, in
the schools, the only reason. We may believe that this philosophy did
not much assist the march of true wisdom; but we must admit, that if it
did, for a moment, lead the human mind astray, it did not quite arrest
its progress. It exercised the faculties of man, and by that means
assisted in their development. At the commencement of societies, it is
less the errors of the mind than its inaction that retains nations in
the darkness of barbarism.

Universities had never been so attended as at this period. The number
of students in the schools of Paris, Bologna, and Oxford were said to
amount to ten thousand. The great privileges granted to universities,
prove the esteem in which learning was then held. The doctors disputed
for precedency with knighthood itself. If Bartholo is to be believed,
ten years’ teaching of the Roman law conferred the title of _knight_.
This dignity was called _the knighthood of learning_, and they who
attained it were called _knights-clerks_.

Among all the productions of mind, those which ought to be ranked
first, were such as had for object the preservation of the memory
of events. At all periods of the middle ages, chronicles appeared,
to which were consigned the important facts of history. In many
monasteries were kept registers or journals, in which was inserted
everything remarkable that happened in the various parts of the
world. Monks, in the general assemblies, sometimes communicated
these registers to each other, and this communication assisted them
in rendering their chronicles more complete. In ages less remote
from us, other cenobites have collected, with laborious care, these
same chronicles, concealed in the solitude of cloisters, and have
transmitted them to posterity as the most precious monuments of old
times.

The ancient chroniclers were simple and pious men; they considered
the least falsehood as a mortal sin; they were scrupulous in telling
the truth, when they were acquainted with it. Most of them would have
thought themselves deficient in the duties of an historian, if they had
not gone back to the creation of the world, or at least to the deluge.
Among the events which they relate, they never forgot such as would
strike the vulgar, and which struck themselves; as the revolutions of
nature, famines, prodigies, &c. According to the spirit of their age,
the foundation of a monastery holds a more conspicuous place in their
recitals than that of a kingdom or of a republic. Politics are quite
unknown to them; and everything which astonishes them, everything they
do not easily comprehend, they rarely fail to account for by a miracle.

Such is the character of our old chroniclers; and even when they do not
inform us of that which we desire to know, their simplicity touches us,
and their ingenuousness interests us. When they tell us of wonderful
things which were believed in their times, and of which they appear
fully persuaded, they do nothing but paint themselves and their age.

But we must beware of fancying the Oriental chronicles of the same
period more perfect than our own. We find in them the same spirit of
superstition and credulity, united to that spirit of fatalism which
characterizes the Mussulman faith.

It is quite in vain for us to seek in Arabian historians any of
those thoughts that instruct us in the knowledge of human passions
or political revolutions. They almost always neglect the most
important circumstances of events, in order to describe whimsical
particularities, or to enter into insignificant details; thus, obeying
the spirit of oriental despotism, which wills that man should be always
occupied with little things. When they relate the fall of an empire,
if asked why it has fallen, they reply: “God knows, God has willed
it so.” In all their chronicles which we have consulted, whenever
the Mussulmans triumph over the Christians, we never find any other
reflection but this: “God is God, and Mahomet is his prophet.” When the
Christians gain a victory, the Mussulman chronicles preserve a perfect
silence, contenting themselves with saying: “May God curse them!”

Oriental historical productions are very far from redeeming this
absence of remark by another merit, such as order, clearness, or
elegance; most of their accounts are nothing but a nomenclature of
facts confusedly arranged. Quotations from the Koran, verses made upon
the occurrence of an event, some comparisons which belong rather to
poetry than history,—such are the only ornaments of their narrations.

We see by this that our chronicles of the middle ages have nothing to
envy in those of the East. Most of them, it is true, are of an extreme
dryness, and have neither precision nor method. But still some few of
them do not appear unworthy of attracting the attention of scholars
and men of taste. As their authors wrote in Latin, we have reason to
believe that the great works of antiquity were not unknown to them, and
in many of their recitals, we may easily perceive they have had models.

History must have made some progress during the crusades. These long
wars between the Christians and the Mussulmans were like a great
spectacle at which Europe and Asia were present. The importance of
the events, and the lively interest which Christendom took in them,
inspired several writers with the desire of retracing the history of
them. A crowd of chroniclers arose in the West, among whom some were
not unworthy of the name of historians. Everybody is acquainted with
William of Tyre, who may be called the Livy of the crusades, Albert
d’Aix, Baudry, archbishop of Dol, Odo of Deuil, and particularly James
of Vitry, in whom we meet with vivid and animated descriptions, a
rapid and flowing style, and a narration almost always elegant:—and,
though last, not least, Villehardouin and Joinville, who wrote in the
French language, and whose memoirs are the earliest monuments of French
literature.

But all these events which presented to historians such rich pictures,
the wonders of nascent institutions, the prodigies of the social world
issuing from the chaos of barbarism, must not only have awakened the
curiosity, they must have struck vividly the minds of new generations.
This grand spectacle, without doubt, contributed to the development of
the faculties connected with the imagination. After having seen the
simple and faithful relations of events, the genius of poets was called
upon to add something to the truthful pictures of the chroniclers.
The troubadours who flourished during the crusades were not likely to
neglect the exploits of so many gallant knights. We hear their voices
constantly mingling with those of the preachers of the holy wars, and
find their poetical fictions everywhere confounded with the narrations
of history.

Among the warriors who went into the East to combat the infidels, a
great number of troubadours and trouvères distinguished themselves. We
have seen the romance of Raoul de Couci, and the verses of Thibault,
count of Champagne. We may add to these names known in the _fasti_ of
the French muses, those of the count of Poictiers, the count of Anjou,
the duke of Brittany, Frederick II., and Richard Cœur-de-Lion. Often
would these princely and lordly Crusaders charm the tediousness of a
long pilgrimage by poetical relaxations and remembrances. The count
of Soissons, when a prisoner with St. Louis, sang the praises of the
dames of France, in the presence and beneath the very swords of the
Saracens. One chronicle relates that at the end of the third crusade,
the duke of Burgundy made a satire against Richard, and that Richard
replied by a poem. The example of these princes was enough to arouse
the emulation of the poets; and as they composed their verses in the
French language, this language, which was then spoken at Jerusalem,
Constantinople, and many other places in the East, must have prevailed
over all contemporary idioms.

The muse of the troubadours celebrated chivalry, love, and beauty;
that of the trouvères, who dwelt on the banks of the Loire, and in
the provinces situated beyond that river, delighted in songs of a
more serious kind. The trouvères had rivals in England and Germany.
These poets had created for themselves an heroic and new world, which
inspired them with noble actions. They celebrated the lofty deeds
of Arthur and Rinaldo, the knights of the Round Table, Charlemagne,
Roland, and the twelve peers of France. They added to these names those
of Godfrey, Tancred, Richard, and Saladin, the remembrance of whom
vividly interested all the Christian nations of the middle ages.

The marvellous, among a people, belongs to their habits, to the effects
of climate, and to the great revolutions of society. In consequence of
the mixture and confusion of divers nations in the middle ages, the
wonderful traditions of the North became confounded with those of the
South, and produced a semi-barbarous mythology, which differed widely
from the laughing mythology of the Greeks. But the labours, the perils,
the exploits of a religious war, of a distant war, like those of the
crusades, must have given a more noble direction to the imagination of
poets, and preserved it from that which was common and whimsical in the
romantic conceptions of a gross age. That which was then passing upon
the real theatre of events, was more extraordinary than the inventions
of poetry; and the marvellous of that period was the more easy to be
seized, from being all to be found in actual history.

A new literature then was born, conforming with the genius of a new
state of society. If this literature, which, to employ the expression
of the learned Heren, bore a character of national and contemporary
originality, had produced great works like the Iliad and the Odyssey,
the muses would have opened for themselves a career unknown to the
ancients; language would have been, from that time enriched, perfected,
fixed by the masterpieces themselves; and history would have spoken of
the age of the crusades, as it speaks to us of the age of Augustus or
Pericles.

Unfortunately, our literature of the middle ages only produced
indifferent poems, which were not able to make us forget the great
works of antiquity. There were none but romantic productions, in which
the interest of the subject was not at all raised by talent, and poems
whose authors, though witty and ingenious, had none of that authority
of genius which carries away the opinions of an age, and even of
posterity.

We have more than one reason for regretting that the human mind did not
open for itself a new career at the period of the crusades. There is
no doubt that the ancients offer us the more perfect models of taste;
but in proportion as people, in the end, became impassioned for the
Greeks and the Latins, modern nations disdained their own antiquities
for those of Athens and Rome. With the study of masterpieces which had
nothing to do with our own glory, the remembrance of our own ancestors
was not at all mixed; and the knowledge they have given us has added
nothing to our patriotism. What an interest and what a value would the
remembrances of our country have had for us, if they had been traced by
a literature, formed according to the manners of the nation, and which
would, in some sort, have commenced with the nation itself!

Most of the romancers, and even the poets of these times, who had no
models and wanted taste, found no other means of interesting their
readers, than by exaggerating the sentiments of chivalry. Imitation,
pushed to the extreme, was taken for reality, and there were found
knights who wished to do that which they saw in romances and poems.
Thence came knight-errantry. Thus, in all times, the state of society
has acted upon literature, and literature, in its turn, has reacted
upon the state of society.

The romances which were consecrated to chivalry and the crusades,
underwent the modifications that manners and customs received; and
this species of composition has come down to our days, expressing, by
turns, the tastes, sentiments, and opinions of each age. This was quite
unknown to antiquity. It was born with the Romance language, whose name
it took; and they who now derive pleasure from it ought to be thankful
for it to the age of the crusades.

These kinds of productions, which attracted the curiosity and attention
of the vulgar, contributed to form the national language, which then
appeared to be scorned by the learned. The Latin language still
remained the language of the sciences and of learning. But it lost its
correctness and its purity. The Latin of the fifteenth century was more
corrupt than that of the twelfth. The Romance language and the Latin
language had a tendency to corrupt each other, by their mixture and
their reciprocal borrowings.

Knowledge, however, continued to increase and spread, and assisted
greatly in polishing the manners of the nations of Europe. One proof
that the crusades were not unconnected with these first steps of
civilization is, that knowledge and letters first flourished among
the peoples enriched by the commerce which the holy wars favoured, as
in Italy; and with the peoples who had most communication with the
Orientals, as the Spaniards. Two inventions were destined to complete
this happy revolution, and mark the commencement and the end of the
period of the crusades. The first was the invention of paper, which
became known in Europe just before the first expedition into the East;
the second, the invention of printing, which took place towards the end
of the holy wars.

There remains but little for us to say upon the results of the
crusades. Several distinguished writers have spoken of them before us,
and the information they have given upon this important subject, whilst
it facilitates our labour, only leaves us the advantage of expressing
an opinion which their authority has consecrated, and which has no
longer any need of being defended.

The better to explain and make clear all the good that the holy wars
brought with them, we have elsewhere examined what would have happened
if they had had all the success they might have had. Let us now attempt
another hypothesis, and let our minds dwell for a moment upon the state
in which Europe would have been, without the expeditions which the
West so many times repeated against the nations of Asia and Africa.
In the eleventh century, several European countries were invaded,
and others were threatened by the Saracens. What means of defence
had the Christian republic then, when most of the states were given
up to license, troubled by discords, and plunged in barbarism? If
Christendom, as M. De Bonald remarks, had not then gone out by all its
gates, and at repeated times, to attack a formidable enemy, have we not
a right to believe that this enemy would have profited by the inaction
of the Christian nations, and that he would have surprised them amidst
their divisions, and subdued them one after another?[126] Which of us
does not tremble with horror at thinking that France, Germany, England,
and Italy might have experienced the fate of Greece and Palestine?

We have said, when commencing our history, that the crusades offered
the spectacle of a sanguinary and terrible struggle between two
religions which contended for the empire of the world; the victory
to belong to that one of these two religions which would inspire its
disciples and defenders with the most generous sentiments, and which,
favouring among them the progress of civilization, would give them the
greater force and power to defend their territories and assure their
conquests.

In this formidable struggle, the true means of defence consisted in
superiority of knowledge and of social qualities. As long as the
ignorance of barbarism reigned over the nations of the West as well
as over those of Asia, victory continued uncertain; perhaps even the
greater strength was then on the side of the more barbarous people, for
they were already possessed of all the conditions of their political
existence. But when the dawn of civilization rose over Europe, she
became aware of her own security, and her enemies began to be sensible
of fear.

The Mussulman religion, by its doctrine of fatalism, appeared to
interdict all foresight to its disciples, and in days of mischance
contained nothing to revive the courage of its warriors. The
Christians, on the contrary, lost none of their faculties in reverses:
reverses often even redoubled their energy and activity. What is
most astonishing in the history of the crusades, is to observe that
the defeats of the Christians in Asia, excited, among the warlike
populations of Europe, much more enthusiasm than their victories.
The preachers of the holy wars, to persuade Christian warriors to
take up arms against the infidels, said nothing of the glory and the
power of Jerusalem; but endeavoured, in their pathetic lamentations,
to exaggerate the perils, the misfortunes, and the decline of the
Christian colonies.

We see by this what advantage Christianity had over the worship of
Mahomet, in the war between the East and the West.

Another vice of the Koran is, that it has a tendency to isolate men;
which is injurious to the development of their social qualities. Under
the empire of Islamism, there is nothing strong but despotism; but
the strength of despotism is, almost always, nothing but the weakness
of the nation it rules over. The Christian religion has another aim,
when it says to its disciples, _Love one another as brothers_. One of
its most admirable characteristics is the spirit of sociability with
which it inspires men. By all its maxims, it orders them to unite,
to help one another, to enlighten one another. It thus doubles their
strength, by placing them constantly in community of labours and
dangers, fears and hopes, opinions and feelings. It was this spirit
of sociability which gave birth to the crusades, and sustained them
during two centuries. If this spirit was unable to assure success, it
at least prepared the Christian republic, at a later period, to defend
itself with advantage. It made the nations of Europe like fasces that
cannot be broken. It created, in the midst of disorders even, a moral
force which nothing could conquer; and Christianity, defended by this
moral force, was at length able to say to the barbarians, masters of
Constantinople, that which God said to the waves of the sea: _You shall
go no further_.

Thus Christianity, and the heroic virtues with which it inspired
its disciples, were, in the middle ages, an invincible buckler for
Christian Europe. When the enthusiasm for crusades beyond the seas
began to die away, the heads of the Church still invoked the spirit
of the Gospel, to animate the nations against the Mussulmans, on the
point of invading Germany and Italy; and, still holding up to Christian
warriors the cross of Christ, sometimes succeeded in awakening in
hearts sentiments of a religious and patriotic heroism. It cannot then
be denied that the crusades contributed to save European societies from
the invasion of the barbarians; and this was, without doubt, the first
and greatest of the advantages which humanity derived from them.

Here I am, then, arrived at the termination of my labour. To resume my
opinions and render a last homage to truth, I must say, that, among the
results of the crusades, there are some which appear incontestable,
others which cannot be determined with precision. I ought to add, that
many circumstances concurred with the civil wars in assisting the
progress of knowledge and civilization. Nothing can be more complicated
than the springs which set modern societies in motion; and he who would
desire to explain the march of things by one single cause, must fall
into great error. The same events do not produce always or everywhere
similar effects; as may be seen by the picture we have traced of Europe
in the middle ages. The holy wars assisted, in France, in abasing the
great vassals, whilst feudal power received scarcely any injury from
it in Germany and other countries. During this period some states
were enlarged, others marched rapidly towards their fall. Among some
nations, liberty took deep root, and presided over young institutions;
among others, the power of princes was elevated, at times freeing
itself from all restraints, at others, being limited by wise laws. Here
flourished commerce, the arts and sciences; elsewhere industry made no
progress, and the human mind remained immersed in darkness. The germs
of civilization, in the times of the crusades, were like those seeds
which the storm carries with it, and scatters, some in barren places,
where they remain unknown and unproductive; others, upon propitious
land, where, the action of the sun, a happy temperature, and the
fecundity of the soil, favour their development, and cause them to bear
good fruits.

Every age has its dominant opinions; and when these opinions are
connected with great events, they leave their impress upon the
institutions of societies. Other events, other opinions come, in
their turn, to give a new direction to human affairs, and to modify,
ameliorate, or corrupt the morals and the laws of nations. Thus, the
political world is unceasingly renewed; by turns, disturbed by violent
shocks, and ruled by generally-spread truths or errors. If, in the
future, societies assume still another new face, there is no doubt
their institutions will, one day, be explained by the influence of
the revolutions we have seen, as we now explain the institutions of
times past, by the influence of the crusades. May posterity gather
and preserve the fruit of our misfortunes, better than we ourselves
have gathered and preserved the fruit of the experience and of the
misfortunes of our fathers![127]

SEE SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER, AT PAGE 549.

APPENDIX.

_No. 1.—Page 2, Vol. I._

IN the third and fourth century of the Christian era, pilgrimages
to the Holy Land became so frequent, that they led to many abuses.
St. Augustine, Serm. 3, de Martyr. Verb., expresses himself thus:
“Dominus non dixit, Vade in Orientem et quære justitiam: naviga
usque ad Occidentem, ut accipias indulgentiam.” The same saint says
elsewhere, Serm. 1, de Verb. Apost. Petri ad Christum: “Noli longa
itinera meditari; ubi credis, ubi venis; ad eum enim, qui ubique est,
amando venitur, non navigando.” St. Gregory of Nyssus, in a letter
which bears for title, “De Euntibus Hierosolymam,” speaks with still
greater vehemence against pilgrimages: he thinks that women, in
particular, would meet on their route with frequent opportunities for
sinning; that Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost were not in one place
more than another; he censures bitterly the morals of the inhabitants
of Jerusalem, who committed the greatest crimes, although they had
constantly before their eyes Calvary and all the places visited
by pilgrims. St. Jerome endeavoured to divert St. Paulinus from
the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, by a letter which is still preserved:
“De Hierosolymis,” said he, “et de Britannia equaliter patet aula
cœlestis.” He added, that an innumerable crowd of saints and doctors
enjoyed eternal life without ever having seen Jerusalem; that from the
reign of Hadrian to that of Constantine, an image of Jupiter received
the adorations of the pagans upon the rock of Calvary, and that fervent
worship was paid to Venus and Adonis within the walls of Bethlehem.

We add an extract from the pilgrimage of St. Eusebius of Cremona,
and his friend St. Jerome, taken from a notice, written by Francis
Ferrarius, vol. i. of the Bollandists, of the month of April, p. 276.

“(A.D. 390-423.) According to St. Jerome, St. Eusebius was born at
Cremona, of distinguished parents, who spared neither pains nor expense
for his education. They were rewarded by the rapid progress of their
son in knowledge, but particularly by the rare virtues which he showed
from his earliest childhood. Solely occupied with religious ideas,
Eusebius, when still young, abandoned his parents, his country, and
all the advantages which his birth and wealth promised him, to go to
Rome, and visit the sacred monuments contained in that city. Very soon
becoming united in a strict friendship with St. Jerome, who dwelt in
Rome, Eusebius determined to accompany him in a voyage which the latter
intended to make to Jerusalem.

“Having embarked, they visited the isle of Cyprus in their passage,
passed through Antioch, where they were received by St. Paulinus, who
was bishop of that city,[128] and arrived safely at Jerusalem. After
having performed their devotions in the spots sanctified with the
presence of Christ, they visited Bethlehem, Calvary, Mount of Olives,
and Mount Tabor, the valley of Jehoshaphat, the castle of Emmaüs, and
extended their pilgrimage as far as Egypt, to witness the fasts and
austerities to which the pious solitaries of the Thebaïs abandoned
themselves. Returning into Judæa, the city of Bethlehem particularly
fixed their attention, and they resolved to found a monastery there,
which was soon filled with religious men disposed to follow the rules
established by St. Jerome himself. But the crowd of pilgrims becoming
daily more considerable, and not knowing how to feed and lodge them,
the two friends were obliged to return to Italy, to sell the property
they had there, which they destined for these pious purposes. St.
Jerome, compelled by his affairs to go to Rome, there met with St.
Paulina, descended from the ancient family of the Gracchi. This lady,
learning the project that had brought him into Italy, determined
to follow his example: she abandoned her fortune, her country, and
her children, and accompanied him to Bethlehem, where she founded a
monastery for maidens, which she governed herself to the time of her
death. St. Jerome, after having employed the large sums he brought back
in the construction of an hospital for pilgrims, terminated his pious
career at Bethlehem, at an advanced age. Eusebius, who was named abbot
after the death of his friend, only survived him two years. Deeply
regretted by his monks, of whom he had constantly been the benefactor
and the father, he was interred, according to his desire, with St.
Jerome, close to the stable in which the Saviour was born. Thus
were united in the tomb, as they had been in life, and as they are,
without doubt, in heaven, where their virtues have placed them, two
men who renounced all they held most dear to strengthen the faith of
the faithful, and to become in a distant country the consolers of the
unfortunate.”

_No. 2.—Page 3, Vol. I._

_The Itinerary from Bordeaux to Jerusalem._

Although we do not think it necessary, at this time of day, to give, as
Mr. Michaud has done, in his “Pièces Justificatives,” the whole of this
celebrated Itinerary,[129] with remarks upon the places passed through
or by; we think we shall gratify the praiseworthy curiosity of many of
our readers by so far presenting the details, as to show the route by
which early pilgrims travelled to the Holy Land.

This Itinerary is deemed by learned men the most exact and correct that
has come down to modern times; it was printed for the first time, in
1588, by the care of the celebrated Pierre Pithon, from a manuscript
upon vellum in his own library; and which, when M. Michaud wrote this
history, was in the Imperial Library at Paris. This Itinerary was
composed about the year 333 of the Christian era. In fact, the author
of it informs us that he went from Constantinople to Chalcedon, and
that he returned to Constantinople under the consulship of Dalmatius
and Xenophilus, who, we learn from Cassiodorus and other authorities,
were consuls together in the year 333. The author was a Christian
of Bordeaux, whose aim, in this work, was to facilitate for his
compatriots the voyage to the Holy Land, which he himself had performed.

The example of the empress Helena, and the magnificence with which she
had ornamented the humble spot which gave our Saviour birth, singularly
excited, at this period, the zeal and curiosity of Christians for such
voyages. A passage from the Psalms, badly interpreted in the Greek,
was considered as a prophecy, and a commandment to all the faithful to
visit the holy places. In the Psalms was read: “Let us adore the Lord,
in the spot where his feet were placed,” and the bishops of that time
unceasingly repeated: “The psalmist has prophesied, and has said; Let
us adore the Lord on the spot where his feet were placed.” This is in
the 132nd Psalm, and Jerome, Eusebius, and others did not understand it
otherwise; the Vulgate translates it: _Adorabimus in loco ubi steterunt
pedes ejus_; but the Hebrew only says, _We will prostrate ourselves
before thy footstool_, that is to say, before the holy ark; and this is
the version in the English.

On leaving this famous city, our pilgrim directed his course towards
Thoulouse, passing by Auch—from Thoulouse to Narbonne, passing by
Carcassonne—and from Narbonne to Arles, passing by Beziers and Nîmes.
Arles was then a city of great note, being called the Little Rome of
the Gauls. He continues his route towards Italy, and after having
passed through the cities of Avignon, Orange, Valence, Die, Gap, and
Embrun, he arrives at the foot of the Cottian Alps (Alpes Cottiæ); at
Briançon he begins to climb Mount Genevre, and soon finds himself at
Susa in Italy. He afterwards enters Turin, follows the Po, traverses
the beautiful plains of Piedmont, which are north of that river,
till he gains Pavia; he re-ascends towards the north, and arrives at
Milan, then the city of Italy second only to Rome. Continuing his
route towards the East, the pilgrim passes through Bergamo, Brescia,
Verona, Vicenza, and arrives at Aquileia, then a great city, but
afterwards destroyed by Attila. He then ascends the Julian Alps, which
separate Friuli from Carniola. He arrives at _Æmona_ (Layback), and at
twenty-three miles beyond that place, marks the limits of Italy and
Norica; which limits were at that time the boundaries of the Western
and the Eastern empires.

Our pilgrim, after quitting the vicariat of Italy, or the ancient
Cisalpine Gaul, enters the diocese of Illyria, goes on to Cilley,
and reaches the city of Petau, in modern Styria. Crossing the river
Drave, he enters Lower, or Second Pannonia; but continues to follow
the northern banks of the Drave, or the southern frontiers of modern
Hungary, and traversing Pannonia Superior, he directs his course to the
south, and gains the banks of the Save at _Cibalis_, which was placed
where now the modern village of Svilaï stands, to the east of Brod.
Proceeding towards the East, he enters _Sirmium_, then one of the most
considerable cities of the Eastern empire, but of which there are now
scarcely any vestiges. At a short distance from Sirmium our pilgrim
comes to the confluence of the Save and the Danube, at _Singidunum_,
where Belgrade is at present, which city, he informs us, terminates
Pannonia Superior. Crossing the Save, he finds himself in Mœsia, now
Servia, and follows the course of the Danube. At _Viminacium_, now
in ruins, near Vi-Palanka and Ram, our pilgrim does not neglect to
remark that it was at this place Diocletian killed Carinus, which
agrees with the account of Eutropius of this event. After leaving
the banks of the Danube at Viminacium, he directs his course towards
the south-east, following the Roman way, which deviates little from
the banks of the Morava, and at about fifty miles before he comes to
Nissa, he points to a station called _Mansio Oromago_, as the limits of
Mœsia and Dacia; but which we must observe is the Dacia of Aurelian,
and not that of Trajan, of which he speaks. After having traversed
Nissa into Servia, he arrives at the city of _Sardica_, whose ruins
are now to be seen near Sophia, or Triaditza. Continuing to follow
the same route, which is that of the present day, from Belgrade to
Constantinople, he sets down the limits between Dacia and Thrace,
just beyond the _Mutatio Sencio_. From Philippopolis, or Felibra, our
pilgrim journeys to _Heraclia_, now Erekil, on the coast of the Sea
of Marmora, and, at length to Constantinople. From Constantinople,
says our traveller, you cross the Bosphorus, you arrive at Chalcedon,
and go through Bithynia. At Libyssa, near Gebyzeh, on the coast of
the Propontis, our pilgrim remarks, is the tomb of Hannibal; which is
confirmed by Pliny, Plutarch, Eusebius, &c. Tournefort and Belo, among
the moderns, say they have seen the tomb in this place. After arriving
in _Nicomedia_ (Isnikmid), our pilgrim continues his route, and passing
through Nice (Isnik) marks near Ceratæ the limits of Bithynia and
Galatia. Then on to _Ancyra_, near Angora—then to Andrapa, where he
places the limits of Galatia and Cappadocia. Proceeding still towards
the south-east, into the Karismania of the moderns, he gains Tyana,
which he tells us is the country of the magician Apollonius. Next is
a place called Pilas, and soon after Tarsus, which he does not fail
to tell us is the country of the apostle Paul. He then enters Cilicia
Secunda, which formed one of the divisions of the empire of the East.
At nine miles beyond Alexandria (or Scanderoun) he marks the limits
of Cilicia and Syria, and arrives at length at the city of Antioch
(Antakia). Our traveller then continues his route along the Roman
way which ran along the coast of Syria, and at _Balnea_ (Belnia),
indicates the limits of Syria and Phœnicia. On passing by a small
place called _Antaradus_ (Centre-Aradus), which is the Tortosa of
the time of the crusades, he takes care to observe that the city of
Aradus itself is only two miles from the coast. This powerful city was
built in the little island called Ruad by the moderns. Our traveler
crosses _Tripolis_ (Taraboles), then Berytus (Berouth), and arrives
at _Sidona_ (Saide). Next to Tyre (now the little village of Sour);
thence to Ptolemaïs (St. Jean d’Acre), and at Sycamenes be finds
himself at the foot of Mount Carmel. At eight miles from that place he
indicates the confines of Syria and Palestine, and arrives at Cæsarea
(Qaïsarich). On leaving Cæsarea, our pilgrim quits the direct road
that leads to Jerusalem. In order the better to fulfil the object of
his voyage, and visit Palestine, he directs his course to the East,
towards the revered waters of the Jordan. After interrupting his
Itinerary to make several Biblical remarks, he proceeds to the banks
of the Jordan, at a place called _Scythopolis_ or _Bethsan_, named by
the moderns Bisan; then going afterwards to the south of the side of
Jerusalem, he passes _Aser_, “in which was the house of Job,” and at
fifteen miles thence enters _Neapolis_ or _Sichem_, the Naboles of
the moderns. Here he ceases to follow any direct route, but visits
every place that the Old or New Testament has rendered memorable; and
gives an account of them in his journey from Neapolis to Jerusalem.
After seeing everything that could attract the attention of a pious
and well-informed Christian, he returns to Jerusalem, and resumes
his Itinerary with as much exactness as at first. As his homeward
journey begins by the same route he arrived, we will join company with
him at Erekil, on the coast of Marmora, where he begins to deviate.
He proceeds to the south of Mount Rhodope, the Despeto-dag of the
moderns; he passes through the city of Apris, which, after Theodosius,
took the name of Theodosiopolis. At a short distance from Apris, our
pilgrim indicates the limits of the province of Europa, and that of
Rhodope. To understand this, we must remember that at the period at
which the Aquitain pilgrim wrote, the diocese of Thrace was divided
into six provinces, amongst which were those of Europa and Rhodope;
the cities of Constantinople, Heraclea, and Apris were in the province
of Europa. Our pilgrim reaches Trajanopolis, which the Turks call
Orichovo, and keeping to the west, through Macedonia, or the Romania
of the moderns, and along the northern shores of the Sea of Marmora,
and of the Archipelago, he points out, near a place called Pardis, the
boundary of the provinces of Rhodope and Macedon—he crosses Neapolis,
now Cavale, and Philippi, which is in ruins. Shortly afterwards he
visits the celebrated Amphipolis on the Strymon, the ruins of which
are now near a little village called Jeni-Keni. Twenty miles farther
our pilgrim contemplates the tomb of the poet Euripides, at a station
named Arethusa, situated in a valley of the same name. He passes by
Thessalonica (Saloniki), which is still one of the most considerable
cities of these countries. He arrives at Pella, the celebrated capital
of Macedon, which presents nothing at the present day but ruins, known
by the name of Palatiæ, or the Palaces. Our pilgrim does not omit
to show his erudition by remarking that Alexander the Great was of
this city—_civitas Pelli, unde fuit Alexander Magnus Macedo_. Here
the pilgrim, directing his course towards the north-west, follows the
famous Egnatian way, constructed by the Romans through Macedon. This
way passes to Edessa, to Heraclea in Macedon, and there, discontinuing
its northward direction, it goes straight to the west to Dyrrachium;
but one branch of this way, before arriving at Dyrrachium, now Durazzo,
re-descends towards Apollonia, now in ruins under the name of Polina;
and it was this last that the pilgrim took. At thirty-three miles from
Heraclea, near a station called Brucida, he points out the limits of
Macedon and Epirus, two provinces which were then only subdivisions of
the great diocese of Macedon. At twenty-four miles from Apollonia, the
Aquitain traveller gains the coast at Aulona (Valena), at a place where
Epirus, or the coast of Albania of the moderns, comes nearest to Italy.
He then crosses the strait between Aulona and Hydruntum, near Otranto.
Upon his arrival in Italy, our pilgrim goes to Brindisi, and afterwards
takes the Appian way, of all the ways the best and the most frequented.
It led him first to Capua. From Capua he continues, by the same way,
to Rome, crossing the Pontine marshes. He quits Rome, and follows the
Flaminian way, which crosses the Apennines, and which leads out at
Ariminum (Rimini), by Spoleto, Fano, and Pesaro.

From Rimini our pilgrim takes the Emilian way, which traced and still
does trace a straight line; and traversing Bologna, Modena, Parma, and
Placentia, he arrives at last at Mediolanum (Milan); from whence he
returns to Bordeaux by the same route he took at starting.

_No. 3.—Page 25, Vol. I._

There is so much sameness, accompanied by such incredible marvels, in
the numerous pilgrimages described by M. Michaud, that we are certain
our readers will willingly dispense with them. The incident which he
promises to give of Foulque, count of Anjou, is this:—“Then the count
approached to kiss the Holy Sepulchre, and then the divine clemency
showed that the good zeal of the count was acceptable, for the stone,
which is hard and solid, at the kiss of the count became soft and
flexible as wax warmed at the fire. The count bit it, and took away a
large piece in his mouth, without the infidels perceiving it; and he
then, quite at his ease, visited the other holy places.”

There is, indeed, another incident to which we fear M. Michaud
alludes; but as the amusement or instruction it could afford would not
compensate for its indecency, we do not give it.

_No. 4.—Page 53, Vol. I._

Among the chroniclers who give an account of this very memorable event,
one of the most esteemed is William of Malmesbury, a monk of the order
of St. Bennet. From his learning he was called the Librarian, and his
particular study was history. He lived in the early part of the twelfth
century. Our author having transferred the spirit of all the chronicles
to his text, we deem it quite unnecessary to offer the whole that he
has quoted from them in his _Pièces Justificatives_; but there is a
curious passage of William of Malmesbury, which shows the character of
the writer and his times, that we shall not hesitate to give.

Having said that, after the council, every one retired to his home, he
continues thus:—“Immediately the fame of this great event being spread
through the universe, penetrated the minds of Christians with its mild
breath, and wherever it blew, there was no nation, however distant or
obscure it might be, that did not send some of its people. This zeal
not only animated the provinces bordering on the Mediterranean, but
all who had ever even heard of the name of a Christian in the most
remote isles, and among barbarous nations. Then the Welshman abandoned
his forests and neglected his hunting; the Scotchman deserted the
fleas with which he is so familiar; the Dane ceased to swallow his
intoxicating draughts; and the Norican turned his back upon his raw
fish.[130] The fields were left by the cultivators, and the houses by
their inhabitants; all the cities were deserted. People were restrained
neither by the ties of blood nor the love of country; they saw nothing
but God. All that was in the granaries or destined for food, was left
under the guardianship of the greedy agriculturist. The voyage to
Jerusalem was the only thing hoped for or thought of. Joy animated
the hearts of all who set out; grief dwelt in the hearts of all who
remained. Why do I say, of those who remained? You might have seen the
husband setting forth with his wife, with all his family; you would
have laughed to see all the penates put in motion and loaded upon cars.
The road was too narrow for the passengers, more room was wanted for
the travellers, so great and numerous was the crowd.”

_No. 5.—Page 82, Vol. I._

_Robert of Normandy._

Robert had, before the crusades, long and serious quarrels with his
father, William II. of Normandy and I. of England. In 1080, he quitted
his country and sought the protection of his uncles, Robert, count
of Flanders, Udo, archbishop of Trèves, and several other princes of
the houses of Lorraine, Germany, Aquitain, and Gascony. He made his
complaints to them, mingling falsehood with truth, and received great
assistance from them. But he squandered their gifts among actors,
parasites, and courtezans. He was so prodigal that he soon became
straitened again, and was obliged to have recourse to usurers. “Every
one,” says the chronicler Orderic Vital, “knew Duke Robert for an
indolent, weak prince. So the ill-intentioned, despising him, took
advantage of his character to excite trouble and factions. The duke
was bold, valiant, worthy of praise in many respects, and naturally
eloquent; but he was inconsiderate, prodigal in his bounty, free of
promises, light and imprudent in his falsehoods, allowing himself
to be easily prevailed upon by prayers; mild in character and slow
to punish crime; changeable in his decisions, too familiar in his
conversation, and by that means drawing upon himself the contempt of
the ill-disposed. He was stout, and short of stature, whence his father
named him Courte-Heuse. He was anxious to please everybody, and gave,
or promised, or granted, all that was asked of him. Prodigal of his
patrimony, he diminished it daily by giving imprudently to every one
what he desired. Thus he became poor, and furnished others with means
to act against him.” When the first crusade took place, Normandy,
ill-governed by such a prince, was in the most deplorable condition.
Duke Robert, in fear of the greatest evils, saw no better means of
avoiding them, than by pledging his duchy with his brother William
Rufus, for five years, for the sum of ten thousand marks, and setting
out for Jerusalem. With his exploits in the Holy Land our readers are
acquainted. In the year 1100, Robert, on his return from Palestine,
landed in Apulia, where he fell in love with Sibylla, daughter of
Geoffrey of Conversana, nephew of Duke Guiscard. He married her, and
took her into Normandy, obtaining from his father-in-law the means
of redeeming his duchy. He lived there eight years much in the same
fashion as before his pilgrimage. At the end of that period, and in
consequence of events foreign to our object, he was made prisoner
at Tinchebray in Normandy, by his brother Henry, who carried him to
London, where he remained confined twenty-seven years, but always
living amidst the enjoyments of life.

_No. 6._

_Charlemagne._

Whilst searching the Chronicles for passages illustrative of our work,
we met with a portrait of Charlemagne so exceedingly interesting, that
although he had nothing to do with the crusades, we cannot refrain from
presenting it to our readers, begging them to remember that Charlemagne
was considered, even in Asia, as the most powerful prince of Europe.

“Charlemagne, who attained the highest degree of celebrity and glory,
of a scrupulous and profound piety, was well informed in letters and
philosophy, was the avenger and ardent propagator of the Christian
religion, and the defender and supporter of justice and truth.
Charlemagne’s face was very white (at the time he was crowned by
the pope, Leo), his countenance was cheerful, and whether standing
or sitting, his carriage was equally majestic. Although his neck
was thick and rather short, and his belly too protuberant, all his
limbs were well proportioned. On days of festivity he wore a mantle
of gold tissue, and a chaussure ornamented with precious stones. His
_sagum_, or cloak, was fastened with a golden clasp, and his diadem
was enriched with gold and jewels. Towards the end of his career, he
was seized, on his return from Spain, with a fever, which lasted four
years, and rendered him lame. He followed rather his own inclinations
than the advice of his physicians, for whom he had a kind of aversion,
because they wished him to abstain from roast meat, of which he was
very fond, and to accustom himself to live on boiled meats. Charles
was called great on account of his great good fortune, in which he was
not inferior to his father, but was, on the contrary, more frequently
a conqueror and more illustrious. In his youth his hair was brown,
and his complexion ruddy; he was handsome, and had much dignity in
his carriage; he was very generous, very equitable in his judgments,
eloquent, and very well informed. He enjoyed every day the sports of
the chase and the exercise of riding on horseback; he was exceedingly
fond of tepid baths, to which he invited not only his children but
the lords of his court, his friends, and his guards, so that there
were often more than a hundred persons in the bath with him. He was
moderate in his eating, and still more so in his drinking; nevertheless
he often complained that fasts were injurious to him. He rarely gave
great banquets, except upon solemn occasions. There were, ordinarily,
not more than four dishes on his table, besides the roast meat which he
so greatly preferred. Whilst he ate, a person read to him histories and
accounts of the actions of the ancients, or else the book of the _City
of God_, by Saint Augustine, for which he had a great predilection.
During the repast he never drank more than three times. In summer, he
took fruit after dinner, and slept two or three hours, undressed as if
at night. His dress was that of the Franks, and he constantly wore a
sword; the sword-belt and baldric being of gold or silver. Sometimes he
wore two swords. He spoke several languages. He had around him doctors
of the seven liberal arts, who instructed him daily; that is to say,
a deacon of Pisa, in grammar; a Saxon, in rhetoric, dialectics, and
astronomy; and Albin, surnamed Alouin, in the other arts. He himself
made some reforms in the art of reading and in that of singing,
although he never read in public aloud, and never sang but with the
choir. He caused all the laws of his kingdom to be written, that
were not so before. He himself wrote the actions and the wars of the
ancients, and began a grammar of the language of his country. He had
every night a hundred and twenty guards around his bed. Ten were placed
at his head, ten at his feet, and ten on each side of him, and each of
these forty held a naked sword in one hand and a lighted torch in the
other.”

_No. 7.—Page 227, Vol. I._

_The Chronicle of Tours._

We think it our duty to give here the passage from Albert d’Aix in
its entirety, which contains the motives for the sentence of death
pronounced by the leaders of the Christian army against the Mussulmans
found in Jerusalem. At the end is the description of the massacres
which followed the taking of the city. For all who wish to appreciate
the spirit of the times, this document is important.

“Jerusalem civitas Dei excelsi, ut universi nôstis, magnâ difficultate,
et non sine damno nostrorum, recuperata, propriis filiis hodie
restituta est, et liberata de manu regis Babyloniæ jugoque Turcorum.
Sed modo cavendum est, ne avaritiâ, aut pigritiâ vel misericordiâ erga
inimicos habitâ, hanc amittamus, captivis et adhuc residuis in urbe
gentilibus, parcentes. Nam si forte à rege Babyloniæ in multitudine
gravi occupati fuimus. subito ab intus et extra impugnabimur, sicque
in perpetuum exilium transportabimur. Unde primum et fidele nobis
videtur consilium, quatenus universi Saraceni et Gentiles, qui captivi
tenentur, pecunia redimendi, aut redempti, sine dilatione in gladio
corruant, ne fraude aut ingenio illorum nobis aliqua occurrant adversa.
Consilio hoc accepto, tertio die post victoriam egressa est sententia
à majoribus; et ecce universi arma rapiunt, et miserabili cædi in omne
vulgus gentilium, quod adhuc erat residuum, exagunt, alios producentes
à vinculis, et decollantes; alios per vicos et plateas civitatis
inventos trucidantes, quibus antea pecuniæ causâ, aut humanâ pietate
pepercerant. Puellis tenellis detruncabant, aut lapidibus obruebant,
in nullis aliquam considerantes ætatem. E contra puellæ, mulieres,
matronæ, metu momentaneæ mortis angustatæ et horrere gravissimæ necis
concussæ, Christianos, in jugulum utriusque sexus debacchantes ac
sævientes, medios pro liberandâ vitâ amplexabantur, quædam pedibus
eorum advolvebantur, de vitâ et salute suâ illos mirum miserando
fletu et ejulatu sollicitantes. Pueri vero quinquennes aut triennes
matrum patrumque crudelem casum intuentes, unà miserum clamorem et
fletum multiplicabant; sed frustra hæc pietatis et misericordiæ signa
fiebant. Nam Christiani sic neci totum laxaverunt animum, ut non sugens
masculus aut fœmina, nedum infans unius anni vivens manum percussoris
evaderet. Unde plateæ totius civitatis Jerusalem, corporibus extinctis
virorum, mulierum, lacerisque membris infantium adeo stratæ et opertæ
fuisse referuntur, ut non solùm in vicis, soliis, et palatiis, sed
etiam in locis desertæ solitudinis, copia occisorum reperiebatur
innumerabilis.”—_Alb._ _Aq._ lib. 6, cap. 30, _ap._ _Bong_. pp. 282,
283.

_No. 8._

_Letter from Bohemond, Godfrey, Raymond, and Hugh the Great, upon the
Peace concluded with the Emperor, and the Victory gained over the
Infidels (anno 1097, ex Manuscript. St. Albani)._

Bohemond, son of Guiscard; Raymond, count of St. Gilles; Duke Godfrey,
and Hugh the Great; to all of the sect of the Catholic faith: may they
attain the eternal felicity which we wish them.

In order that the peace concluded between us and the emperor, as well
as the events that have happened to us since we have been in the lands
of the Saracens, be known to all the world, we despatch to you, very
dear brethren, an envoy, who will inform you of all it can interest you
to know. We have to tell you, that in the month of May, the emperor
promised us that from that time, pilgrims who came from the West to
visit the Holy Sepulchre, should be protected from all insults on the
lands of his dominions; pronouncing pain of death against whoever
should transgress against his orders, and giving us at the same time,
as hostages, his son-in-law and his nephew, as guarantees of his word.
But let us return to events more capable of interesting you. At the
end of the same month of May, we gave battle to the Turks, and, by the
grace of God, we conquered them. Thirty thousand were left upon the
field of battle. Our loss amounted to three thousand men, who, by that
glorious death, have acquired felicity without end. It is impossible
to value correctly the immense quantity of gold and silver, as well as
precious vestments and arms, that fell into our hands; Nice, a city of
importance, with the forts and castles which surround it, immediately
surrendered. We likewise fought a bloody battle in Antioch; sixty-nine
thousand infidels were killed in the place, whilst only ten thousand
of us had the good fortune to obtain eternal life upon this occasion.
Never was a joy equal to that which animates us, beheld; for, whether
we live, or whether we die, we belong to the Lord. On this subject
learn that the king of Persia has sent us a message, by which he
warns us of his intention of giving us battle towards the festival of
All-Saints. If he should prove the conqueror, his design is, he says,
with the help of the king of Babylon and many other infidel princes, to
make incessant war upon the Christians; but if he should be conquered,
he will be baptized with all those he can persuade to follow his
example. We beg you, then, very dear brethren, to redouble your fasts
and your alms, particularly the third day before the festival, which
will be on a Friday, the day of triumph of Jesus Christ, in which we
shall fight with much more hope of success, by preparing ourselves by
prayers and other acts of devotion.

P.S.—I, bishop of Grenoble,[131] send these letters, which have been
brought to me, to you archbishops and canons of the church of Tours,
in order that they may be known by all those who will repair to the
festival, and by those of the different parts of the earth into which
they shall return; and that some may favour this holy enterprise by
alms and prayers, whilst others, taking up arms, will hasten to take a
part in it.

_No. 9._

_Letter from Daimbert, Archbishop of Pisa, Godfrey of Bouillon, and
Raymond, Count of St. Gilles. They announce the Victories gained by
the Christian Armies in the Holy Land (anno 1100, ex Manuscript.
Signiensis Monasterii)._

I, archbishop of Pisa, and the other bishops; Godfrey, by the grace of
God now defender of the Holy Sepulchre, and all the army of the Lord,
at present in the land of Israel, to our holy father the pope, to
the Romish Church, to all bishops, and to all Christians, health and
benediction in our Lord Jesus Christ.

God has manifested his mercy by accomplishing by means of us, that
which he promised in ancient times. After the taking of Nice, our army,
three hundred thousand men strong, covered the whole of Romania. The
Saracen princes and kings having risen up against us, with the help of
God were easily conquered and annihilated; but as some of us became
vain-glorious upon these advantages, the Lord, to prove us, opposed
Antioch to us, a city against which human efforts could do nothing,
which stopped us nine months, and the resistance of which so humbled
our pride, that it compelled us to have recourse to penitence. God,
touched by our repentance, allowed a ray of his divine mercy to shine
upon us, introduced us into the city, and gave the Turks with all their
possessions up to us.

In our ingratitude, having a second time imputed this success to our
own courage, and not to the Omnipotent who had caused us to obtain
it, he permitted, for our chastisement, that an innumerable multitude
of Saracens should come and besiege us, so that nobody durst go out
of the city; we were soon given up to so cruel a famine, that some of
us, in their despair, did not appear averse to nourishing themselves
upon human flesh. It would be too long to make the recital of all
we suffered in this respect. At length the anger of the Lord became
appeased, and he so inflamed the courage of our warriors, that even
they who were weakened by disease and famine took up arms and fought
valiantly. The enemy was conquered; and as our army was fruitlessly
consuming itself within the walls of Antioch, we entered Syria, and
took from the Saracens the cities of Barra and Marra, as well as
several castles and strong places. A horrible famine which assailed our
army here, placed us under the cruel necessity of feeding upon the dead
bodies of the Saracens, already in a state of putrefaction. Happily,
the hand of the Lord aided us again, and opened to us the gates of
the cities and fortresses of the countries we passed through. At our
approach, they hastened to send us messengers loaded with provisions
and presents; they offered to surrender and accept the laws we might
please to dictate; but as we were few in number, and as the general
desire of the army was to march to Jerusalem, we continued our route,
after having required hostages of the cities, the smallest of which
contained more inhabitants than we had soldiers.

The news of these advantages induced a great number of our people who
had remained at Antioch and Laodicea, to join us at Tyre, so that,
under the all-powerful _ægis_ of the Lord, we arrived at Jerusalem. Our
troops suffered much in the siege of this place from the want of water.
The council of war being assembled, the bishops and principal leaders
ordered that the army should make a procession barefooted around the
city, in order that He who formerly humiliated himself for us, touched
by our humility, might open the gates to us, and give up his enemies to
our anger. The Lord, appeased by our action, gave up Jerusalem to us
eight days afterwards, precisely at the period at which the Apostles
composing the primitive Church separated to spread themselves over
the different parts of the earth, an epoch which is celebrated as a
festival by a great number of the faithful. If you desire to know what
we did to the enemies we found in the city, learn that in the portico
of Solomon, and in the temple, our horses walked up to their knees
in the impure blood of the Saracens. We already marked out those who
were to guard the place, and we had already granted to those whom a
love of country or a desire to see their families again recalled into
Europe, permission to return thither, when we were informed that the
king of Babylon was at Ascalon, with an innumerable army, announcing
haughtily his project of leading away into captivity the Franks who
guarded Jerusalem, and then rendering himself master of Antioch. It
was thus he spoke; but the God of heaven had ordained otherwise. This
news being confirmed to us, we marched to meet the Babylonians, after
leaving in the city our wounded and our baggage, with a sufficient
garrison. The two armies being in presence of each other, we bent our
knees, and invoked in our favour the God of armies, that it might
please Him, in His justice, to annihilate by our hands the power of the
Saracens and that of the demon, and by that means extend his Church
and the knowledge of the Gospel from one sea to the other. God granted
our prayers, and gave us such courage that those who could have seen
us rush upon the enemy, would have taken us for a herd of deer going
to quench the thirst that devours them in a clear fountain which they
perceive. Our army consisted of little more than five thousand horsemen
and fifteen thousand foot; the enemy, on the contrary, had more than
a hundred thousand horse and forty thousand foot soldiers. But God
manifested his power in favour of his servants. Our first charge alone
put to flight, even without fighting, this immense multitude. It might
be said they feared to offer the least resistance, and that they had
not arms upon which they could depend to defend themselves with. All
the treasures of the king of Babylon fell into our hands. More than a
hundred thousand Saracens fell beneath our swords; a great number were
drowned in the sea, and fear was so strong upon them, that two thousand
were stifled in the gates of Ascalon, by pressing to get in.

If our soldiers had not been occupied in pillaging the camp of the
enemies, scarcely, of such a number, enough would have escaped
to announce their defeat. We cannot pass by in silence a very
extraordinary event. On the day before that of the battle, we took
possession of several thousands of camels, oxen, and sheep. The leaders
commanded the soldiers to leave them, in order to march towards the
enemy. A wonderful thing to relate, these animals accompanied us still,
stopping when we stopped, advancing when we advanced; the clouds even
sheltered us from the ardour of the sun, and the zephyrs blew to
refresh us. We offered up thanks to the Lord for the victory he had
enabled us to gain, and we returned to Jerusalem. The count of St.
Gilles, Robert duke of Normandy, and Robert count of Flanders, left
Duke Godfrey there, and came back to Laodicea. A perfect concord having
been reëstablished between Bohemond and our leaders by the archbishop
of Pisa, the Count Raymond prepared to return to Jerusalem for the
service of God and his brethren. In consequence we wish for you, heads
of the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ, and first of the Latin people;
and you all, bishops, clerks, monks, and laymen, that in favour of the
courage and admirable piety of your brethren, it may please the Lord
to pour his blessings upon you, to grant you the entire remission of
your sins, and to make you sit at the right hand of God, who lives
and reigns with the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost, from all
eternity. So be it.

We pray you and supplicate you by our Lord Jesus Christ, who was always
with us, and who has preserved us through all our tribulations, to show
gratitude towards our brethren who return to you, to do them kindness,
and pay them that which you owe them, in order by that means to render
yourselves agreeable to the Lord, and to obtain a part in the favours
they have merited from divine goodness.

No. 10.

_Letter of the principal Crusaders to Pope Urban. (See Foulcher de
Chartres, pages 394, 395, of the Collection of Bongars.)_

We are all desirous that you should know how great the mercy of God has
been towards us, and by what all-powerful help we have taken Antioch;
how the Turks, who had loaded with outrages our Lord Jesus Christ, have
been conquered and put to death, and how we have avenged the injuries
done to our God; how we have at last been besieged by the Turks from
Corasan, Jerusalem, Damascus, and many other countries; and how at
length, by the protection of Heaven, we have been delivered from a
great danger.

When we had taken Nice, we routed, as you have learnt, a great
multitude of Turks who came out against us. We beat the great Soliman
(Kilidge-Arslan), we made a considerable booty, and being masters of
all Romania, we laid siege to Antioch. We suffered much in this siege,
both on the part of the Turks shut up in the city, and on the part of
those who came to succour the besieged. At length, the Turks being
conquered in all the battles, the cause of the Christian religion
triumphed in the following manner. I, Bohemond (_ego Bohemundus_),
after having made an agreement with a certain Saracen, who agreed to
give up the city to me, I applied ladders to the walls towards the end
of the night, and we thus made ourselves masters of the place which
had so long resisted Jesus Christ. We killed Accien, the governor
of Antioch, with a great number of his people, and we had in our
power their wives, their children, their families, and all that they
possessed. We could not, however, get possession of the citadel; and
when we were about to attack it, we saw an infinite number of Turks
arrive, whose approach had been announced to us for some time; we saw
them spread over the country, covering all the plains. They besieged
us on the third day; more than a hundred of them penetrated to the
citadel, and threatened to invade the city from within.

As we were placed upon a hill opposite to that on which the fort stood,
we guarded the road which led into the city, and forced the infidels,
after several combats, to reënter the citadel. As they saw they could
not execute their project, they surrounded the place in such a manner
that all communication was cut off; at which we were greatly afflicted
and desolated. Pressed by hunger and all sorts of miseries, many among
us killed their horses and their asses which they brought with them,
and ate them; but at last the mercy of God came to our assistance; the
apostle Andrew revealed to a servant of God the place in which the
lance was with which Longinus pierced the side of the Saviour. We found
this holy lance in the church of the apostle Peter. This discovery, and
several other divine revelations, restored our strength and courage to
such a degree, that those who were full of despair and fright became
full of ardour and audacity, and exhorted each other to the fight.
After having been besieged during three weeks and four days, on the
day of the festival of St. Peter and St. Paul, full of confidence in
God, having confessed all our sins, we marched out of the city in order
of battle. We were in such small numbers, in comparison with the army
of the Saracens, that the latter might well believe we meant to fly,
instead of to provoke them to fight. Having made our dispositions, we
attacked the enemy wherever they appeared in force. Aided by the divine
lance, we put them at once to flight. The Saracens, according to their
custom, began to disperse on all sides, occupying the hills and roads,
with the design of surrounding us and destroying the whole Christian
army; but we had learnt their tactics. By the grace and mercy of God,
we succeeded in making them unite at one point, and when they were
united, the right hand of God fought with us; we forced them to fly and
abandon their camp, with all that was in it. After having conquered
them and pursued them the whole day, we returned full of joy into
Antioch. The citadel surrendered; the commander and most of his people
being converted to the Christian faith. Thus our Lord Jesus Christ
beheld all the city of Antioch restored to his law and his religion;
but as something sorrowful is always mixed with the joys of this world,
the bishop of Puy, whom you gave us for your apostolic vicar, died
after the conquest of the city, and after a war in which he had gained
much glory. Now your children, deprived of the father you gave them,
address themselves to you who are their spiritual father. We pray you,
you who have opened to us the way we are following, you, who by your
discourses have made us quit our homes and all we held dearest in our
own countries, who have made us take the cross to follow Jesus Christ
and glorify his name, we conjure you to complete your work by coming
into the midst of us, and by bringing with you all you can bring. It
was in the city of Antioch that the name of Christian took its origin;
for when St. Peter was installed in that church which we see every day,
those who had called themselves Galileans named themselves Christians.
What can be more just or more suitable than to see him who is the head
of the Church come to this city, which may be regarded as the capital
of Christendom? Come, then, and help us to finish a war which is yours.
We have conquered the Turks and the Pagans; we cannot in the same way
combat heretics, Greeks, Armenians, Syrians, and Jacobites; we conjure
you to do so; we conjure you, holy Father, with earnestness. You, who
are the father of the faithful, come amongst your children; you, who
are the vicar of St. Peter, come and take your seat in his church; come
and mould our hearts to submission and obedience; come and destroy by
your supreme and sole authority all kinds of heresies; come and lead
us in the road you have marked out for us, and open to us the gates of
the one and the other Jerusalem; come, and with us deliver the tomb of
Jesus Christ, and make the name of Christian prevail over all other
names. If you yield to our wishes, if you come amongst us, every one
will obey you. May He who reigns in all ages bring you amongst us, and
make you sensible to our prayers. Amen.

_No. 11._

_Council of Naplouse, held by the Authority of Garamond, Patriarch of
Jerusalem, to reform the Morals of the Christians of Palestine, in the
Presence of Baldwin, King of Jerusalem, in the year of our Lord 1120,
in the Pontificate of Calixtus II._

This is the manner in which William of Tyre, book xii. of the _Holy
War_, chap. xiii. relates summarily the cause and the acts of the
council.

The same year, that is to say the year 1120 of the incarnation of the
Word, the kingdom of Jerusalem being tormented, on account of its sins,
with many troubles, and in addition to the calamities inflicted by
their enemies, a multitude of locusts and gnawing rats destroying the
harvests to such a degree that it was feared bread would be wanting;
the seigneur Garamond, patriarch of Jerusalem, a man religious and
fearing God; the king Baldwin, the prelates of the churches, and
the great men of the kingdom, repaired to Naplouse, a small city of
Samaria, and held a public assembly and a general court. In a sermon
addressed to the people, it was said, that as it appeared plain that
it was the sins of the people which had provoked the Lord, it was
necessary to deliberate in common upon the means of correcting and
repressing excesses, in order that, returning to a better life, and
worthily satisfying for their remitted sins, the people might render
themselves acceptable to Him who desireth not the death of a sinner,
but rather that he should turn from his wickedness and live. Terrified,
then, by the menacing signs of Heaven, by frequent earthquakes, by
successive defeats, by the pangs of famine, by perfidious and daily
attacks of their enemies; seeking to win back the Lord by works of
piety, they have, to restore and preserve discipline in morals,
decreed twenty-five acts, which shall have the force of laws. If any
one be desirous of reading them, they will be easily found in the
archives of many churches.

Present at this council, Garamond, patriarch of Jerusalem; the logician
Baldwin, second king of the Latins; Ekmar, archbishop of Cæsarea;
Bernard, bishop of Nazareth; the bishop of Liddes; Gildon, abbot elect
of St. Mary of the Valley of Jehoshaphat; Peter, abbot of Mount Tabor;
Achard, prior of Mount Sion; Payen, chancellor of the king; Eustace
Granier; William de Buret; Batisan, constable of Jaffa; and many others
of the two orders, of whom we forget the number and the names.

“The synod,” says Baronius, “towards the end of 1120 succeeded in
effecting such a reformation in morals, that by the mercy of Heaven,
in the following year, 1121, the leader of the Turks, coming against
Antioch with considerable strength, was struck with apoplexy and died.”

CHAP. 1.—As it is necessary that things which commence by God should
finish in him and by him, with the intention of beginning this holy
council and terminating it by the Lord, I, Baldwin, second king of the
Latins at Jerusalem, opening this holy assembly by God, I render and
I grant, as I have ordered, to the holy Church of Jerusalem, and to
the patriarch here present, Garamond, as well as to his successors,
the tenths of all my revenues, as far as concerns the extent of this
diocese; that is to say, the tenths of my revenues of Jerusalem,
Naplouse, and Ptolemaïs, which is further called Accon. They are the
benefits of my royal munificence, in order that the patriarch, charged
with the duty of praying the Lord for the welfare of the state, may
have wherewithal to subsist on. And if, one day, in consequence of
the progress of the Christian religion, he, or one of his successors,
should ordain a bishop in one of these cities, he may dispose of the
tenths as well for the king as for the Church.

CHAP. 2.—I, Bohemond, in the presence of the members of this council,
with the consent of the personages of the assembly and of my barons,
who will do the same by their tenths, according to the extent of their
ecclesiastical powers, I make restitution of the tenths, as I have
said; and agreeing with them as to the injustice with which they and I
have retained them, I ask pardon.

CHAP. 3.—I, Patriarch Garamond, on the part of the all-powerful God,
by my power and that of all the bishops and brethren here present,
I absolve you upon the said restitution of the tenths, and I accept
charitably with them the tenths you acknowledge to owe to God, to me,
and to your other bishops, according to the extent of the benefices of
the brethren present or absent.

CHAP. 4.—If any one fears being ill-treated by his wife, let him go
and find him whom he suspects, and let him forbid him, before legal
witnesses, entrance to his house and all colloquy with his wife. If,
after this prohibition, he or any one of his friends should find them
in colloquy in his house or elsewhere, let the man, without any cutting
off of his members, be submitted to the justice of the Church; and if
he purges himself by ardent fire, let him be dismissed unpunished.
But when he shall have undergone some disgrace for being surprised in
colloquy, let him be dismissed unpunished and without vengeance for
having violated the prohibition.

M. Michaud inserts the whole of these laws; but we omit the next
twelve, as more likely to create disgust than to afford instruction or
amusement.

CHAP. 16.—The male or female Saracen who shall assume the dress of the
Franks shall belong to the state.

CHAP. 17.—If any man, already married, has married another woman, he
has, to the first Sunday of Lent of our year, to confess himself to the
priest and perform penance; afterwards he has but to live according to
the precepts of the Church. But if he conceals his crime longer, his
goods will be confiscated; he will be cut off from society and banished
from this land.

CHAP. 18.—If any man, without knowing it, marries the wife of another,
or if a woman marries, without knowing it, a man already married,
then let the one that is innocent turn out the guilty one, and be in
possession of the right of marrying again.

CHAP. 19.—If any man, wishing to get rid of his wife, says he has
another, or that he has taken her during the lifetime of the first, let
him submit to the ordeal of red-hot iron, or let him bring before the
magistrates of the Church, legal witnesses, who will affirm by oath
that it is so. What is here said of men is applicable to women.

CHAP. 20.—If a clerk take up arms in his own defence, there is no
harm in it; but if, from a love of war, or to sacrifice to worldly
interests, he renounces his condition, let him return to the Church
within the time granted, let him confess and conform afterwards with
the instructions of the patriarch.

CHAP. 21.—If a monk or regular canon apostatize, let him return to his
order or go back to his country.

CHAP. 22.—Whoever shall accuse another without being able to prove the
fact, shall undergo the punishment due to the crime he has accused him
of.

CHAP. 23.—If any one be convicted of robbery above the value of six
sous, let him be threatened with the loss of his hand, his foot, or
his eyes. If the theft be below six sous, let him be marked with a hot
iron on the forehead, and be whipped through the city. If the thing
stolen be found, let it be restored to him to whom it belongs. If the
thief has nothing, let his body be given up to him he has injured. If
he repeats the offence, let him be deprived of all his members, and of
his life.

CHAP. 24.—If any one under age commits a theft, let him be kept until
the King’s court shall decide what shall be done with him.

CHAP. 25.—If any baron surprises a man of his own class in the act of
theft, the latter is not to be subject to the loss of his members, but
let him be sent to be judged in the King’s court.

_No. 12._

_Bull of Pope Eugenius III. for the Second Crusade._

We here give a translation of the bull of Eugenius III., published
in 1145, for the second crusade. It is taken from “Bullarum Romanum
Novissimum,” the first volume.

“The servant of the servants of God, to his dear son Louis, illustrious
and glorious king of the French, to his dear sons the princes, and
to all the faithful of the kingdom of France, health and apostolic
benediction.

“We know by the history of times past, and by the traditions of our
fathers, how many efforts our predecessors made for the deliverance
of the Church of the East. Our predecessor, Urban, of happy memory,
sounded the evangelic trumpet, and employed himself with unexampled
zeal, in summoning the Christian nations from all parts of the world
to the defence of the Holy Land. At his voice, the brave and intrepid
warriors of the kingdom of the Franks, and the Italians, inflamed
with a holy ardour, took arms, and delivered, at the cost of their
blood, the city in which our Saviour deigned to suffer for us, and
which contains the tomb, the monument of His passion. By the grace
of God, and by the zeal of our fathers, who defended Jerusalem, and
endeavoured to spread the Christian name in those distant countries,
the conquered cities of Asia have been preserved up to our days, and
many cities of the infidels have been attacked and their inhabitants
have become Christians. Now, for our sins, and those of the Christian
people (which we cannot repeat without grief and lamentation), the city
of Edessa,—which in our own language is called Rohas, and which, if we
can believe the history of it, when the East was subjected to the Pagan
nations, alone remained faithful to Christianity,—the city of Edessa
is fallen into the hands of the enemies of the cross.

“Several other Christian cities have shared the same fate: the
archbishop of that city with his clergy, and many other Christians
have been killed; relics of saints have been given up to the insults
of the infidels, and dispersed. The greatest danger threatens the
Church of God and all Christendom. We are persuaded that your prudence
and your zeal will be conspicuous on this occasion; you will show
the nobleness of your sentiments and the purity of your faith. If
the conquests made by the valour of the fathers are preserved by the
valour of the sons, I hope you will not allow it to be believed that
the heroism of the French has degenerated. We warn you, we pray you,
we command you, to take up the cross and arms. I warn you for the
remission of your sins,—you who are men of God,—to clothe yourselves
with power and courage, and stop the invasions of the infidels, who
are rejoicing at the victory gained over you; to defend the Church
of the East, delivered by our ancestors; to wrest from the hands of
the Mussulmans many thousands of Christian prisoners who are now in
chains. By that means the holiness of the Christian name will increase
in the present generation, and your valour, the reputation of which is
spread throughout the universe, will not only preserve itself without
stain, but will acquire a new splendour. Take as your example that
virtuous Mattathias, who, to preserve the laws of his ancestors, did
not hesitate to expose himself to death with his sons and his family;
did not hesitate to abandon all he held dear in the world, and who,
with the help of Heaven, after a thousand labours, triumphed over his
enemies. We, who watch over the Church and over you, with a parental
solicitude, we grant to those who will devote themselves to this
glorious enterprise the privileges which our predecessor Urban granted
to the soldiers of the cross. We have likewise ordered that their wives
and their children, their worldly goods, and their possessions, should
be placed under the safeguard of the Church, of the archbishops, the
bishops, and the other prelates. We order, by our apostolic authority,
that those who shall have taken the cross shall be exempt from all
kinds of pursuit on account of their property, until their return, or
until certain news be received of their death. We order, besides, that
the soldiers of Jesus Christ should abstain from wearing rich habits,
from having great care in adorning their persons, and from taking
with them dogs for the chase, falcons, or anything that may corrupt
the manners of the warriors. We warn them, in the name of the Most
High, that they should only concern themselves with their war-horses,
their arms, and everything that may assist them in contending with the
infidels. The holy war calls for all their efforts, and for all the
faculties they have in them; they who undertake the holy voyage with
a right and pure heart and who shall have contracted debts, shall
pay no interest. If they themselves, or others for them, are under
obligations to pay usurious interest, we release them from them by
our apostolic authority. If the lords of whom they hold, will not, or
cannot lend them the money necessary, they shall be allowed to engage
their lands or possessions to ecclesiastics, or any other persons. As
our predecessor has done, by the authority of the all-powerful God,
and by that of the blessed St. Peter, prince of the apostles, we grant
absolution and remission of sins, we promise life eternal to all those
who shall undertake and terminate the said pilgrimage, or who shall die
in the service of Jesus Christ, after having confessed their sins with
a contrite and humble heart.”

_Given at Viterbo, in the month of December, 1145._

_No. 13._

_A Letter from Saladin, drawn up by the Cdi Alfadhel, to the Imaum
Nassir Del-din-illah Aboul Abbas Ahmed, containing the account of the
Conquest of Jerusalem, and of the Battle of Tiberias._

After devout wishes for the caliph, he enters thus on his subject:—

“The _servant_ (that is Saladin) has written this letter, which
contains the account of the auspicious events of which he is the
author. The inscription of this letter is the description of divine
goodness, which is a sea for pens, a sea in which they may swim for
ages. It is a blessing for which the gratitude should be measureless.
Let thanks then be rendered to God for this blessing of to-day; it is
a blessing which will last for ever; let no one say: _The like has
been seen_. The affairs of Islamism are in the happiest condition; the
faith of those who believe in it is strengthened. The Mussulmans have
destroyed the error which infidels had spread over these places. God
has faithfully fulfilled, with regard to his religion, the compact he
entered into. Religion was exiled and a stranger; she now inhabits
her natural dwelling: the reward is received, that reward purchased
at the price of life. The commandment of the truth of God, which was
powerless, is now in vigour; his house is re-peopled, though it was
abandoned after it had been destroyed. The order of God is arrived,
and the noses of the polytheists are abased. Swords advanced by night,
and the sick were asleep. (That is to say, I believe, that Saladin
surprised the Crusaders, and that the Christians did not expect what
happened to them on his part.) God has performed the promise he made
to raise his religion above all religions. Its light is more brilliant
than that of the morning; the Mussulmans are restored to their
heritage, which had been wrested from them. They have been awakened,
they have conquered that which they could not have hoped to conquer,
even in their dreams; their feet are firmly fixed upon the hill; their
standards have floated over the mosque; they have prayed upon _the
black stone_. In acting thus, the _servant_ proposed to himself nothing
short of these great results; he only confronted _this evil_ (the evils
of this war) in the hope of this great blessing; he only made war
on those who opposed him, that the word of God might be spread; for
the word of God is exalted; he has only fought that he might by that
means merit eternal life, and not the wealth of this world. Perhaps,
tongues may have accused him of having a contemptible object, and
men’s thoughts have calumniated him; but he has extinguished these
thoughts by means of time and patience. He who sought a precious thing
placed himself in danger. He who exerted himself to render his life
illustrious, exposed himself. Otherwise, the _servant_ has only acted
after having consulted with the wisest of his doctors. The _servant_
has written this letter, and already God has caused him to triumph
over his enemies. The towers of the infidel are cast down; he drew
his sword, and it became a wand; his attacks became weak; he turned
his bridle; and, as a chastisement from God, he has not found hands
to act with. His swords have slept in their scabbards, his lances
have lost their noses (points), and for a long time they were raised
to inflict death. The land of Jerusalem is become pure; it was as a
woman who has her rules. God is become one God, and he was _trinary_
(or three). The houses of the infidel are destroyed, the dwellings of
polytheism are cast down. The Mussulmans have taken possession of the
fortified castles. Our enemies will not return to them again, for they
are branded with the seal of weakness and degradation. God has placed
beauty where deformity was.

* * * * *

The first time the servant attacked them,[132] God came to his succour,
and assisted him with his angels; he broke them with a rupture past
remedy; he precipitated them with a fall which would not allow the
infidels to rise up again. He made a great number of prisoners, and
killed many of their people. The field of battle was covered with dead,
arms, and horses. How many swords became like saws, with striking! How
many horsemen rushed towards the destiny which destroyed them! The
king himself (of Jerusalem) advanced and cleared all before him. That
day was a day of testimony (of the favour of God and the valour of the
Mussulmans). The angels were witnesses. Error was at bay; Islamism took
birth. The ribs of the infidels were materials for the fire of hell.
The king was taken, and he held in his hand the most firm of his ties,
the most strong of the _bonds_ of his religion and of his belief. That
was the _cross_, the leader, the guide of the partisans of pride and
tyranny. They (the Christians) never advanced towards a peril without
having this in the midst of them; they flew round it as moths fly round
a light. Their hearts gathered together under its shade; they fought
under this light with the greatest courage. They considered it as the
strongest tie that could bind them together; they believed it to be a
wall which would defend them on this day. On that day the greater part
of the infidels were taken. Not one of them turned his back, except the
Count.[133] May God curse him! He was eager for carnage in the day of
victory, and full of base tricks in the day of degradation; he saved
himself! but how? he stole away for fear of being struck by the lance
or the sword; God afterwards took him in his own hands, caused him to
die according to his promise, and sent him from the kingdom of death
to hell. After the defeat, the servant passed through the province
(Palestine), and gathered together the Abassides subjects that were
scattered about it;—those subjects who carried terror to the hearts of
their enemies; and he conquered by their aid such and such places.

* * * * *

This province (Palestine) is full of wells, lakes, islands, mosques,
minarets, population, armies. The servant will change the tares of
error for the good seed of the true faith; he will cast down the
crosses of the churches, and will cause the _izan_ (the summons of the
Mussulmans to prayers) to be heard. He will change into _pulpits_ the
places on which the infidels immolated (altars), and of churches he
will make mosques.

“There remained nothing but Jerusalem; every banished man, every
fugitive had here taken refuge; those from afar as well as those near
had here shut themselves up; they considered themselves as there
protected by the favour of God; they believed that their Church would
intercede for them. Then the servant arrived before the city; he beheld
a city well peopled; he beheld troops who had agreed to die; for whom
death would be sweet if their city was doomed to fall. He came to
one side of the city, but he found that the valleys (or the gardens)
were deep; that bad passages were numerous; that the walls, like a
necklace, surrounded it, and that towers, like large beads,[134] were
placed along the middle of the walls. Then he directed his course to
another side, where there was such an ascent as he desired, a place
and an asylum for the cavalry; he surrounded this side and made his
approaches to it; he caused his tent to be pitched in a spot exposed
to the attempts of the enemy; he attacked the walls vigorously, and at
length got possession of them. The besieged sent to him, offering to
pay him a tribute for a certain time; they wished to obtain a cessation
of their distress, and wait for reinforcements. The servant deferred
his answer, and drew his machines nearer; the machines that are the
sticks and cords that punish castles for their resistance. Their
strokes prepared the victory. Possession was taken of the towers; the
walls were void of combatants; stone crumbled away into dust again,
as it had been at first. The gates fell into the hands of the army of
the servant. Then the infidels despaired; the leader of the impiety
came out then: this was _Ben_ or _Bezbar-ran_; he requested that the
city should be taken by capitulation and not by storm; the abjection
of ruin and distress was imprinted upon his countenance, which before
shone with the glory of royalty; he prostrated himself in the dust,
he before whom nobody had dared to raise their eyes, and said: There
(pointing to the city) are thousands of captive Mussulmans;—this
is the determination of the Franks: if you take the city by force,
if you place the burden of war heavily on their backs, they will
immediately kill their captives; they will afterwards kill their wives
and children; then they will have nothing to wish for but death;
but not one of them will die without having sacrificed many of your
people.’ The officers were of opinion that the city should be taken
by capitulation; for, said they, if it is taken by storm, there is
no doubt but that the besieged will rush headlong into danger, and
will sacrifice their lives for a thing they have so well defended. In
the sorties they had precedingly made, they had displayed incredible
courage, and their attacks had been terrible.

* * * * *

But God has driven them out of this territory, and has cast them down;
he has favoured the partisans of the truth, and has shown his anger
against the infidels. These had protected this city by the sword; they
had raised buildings at the point of the sword and with columns of
soldiers. These (the infidels) have placed churches there, and houses
of the Diweieh, Deuïourjeh, &c., and of the Hospitallers. In these
houses are precious things in marble.

“The servant has restored the mosque _Alasca_ to its ancient
destination. He has placed imauns in it, who will there celebrate the
true worship. The _khothbeh_ (or sermon) was made there on Friday, the
14th of Chaaban. Little was wanting to make the heavens open with joy,
and the stars dance. The word of God has been exalted; the tombs of the
prophets, which the infidels had stained, have been purified, &c. &c.”

Towards the end of his letter, Saladin says that his troops are spread
all over the province; he boasts of the fertility and richness of it,
and says he is going to complete the conquest of it. He adds that the
fleet has put to sea; and that he is about to restore the walls of
Jerusalem.

_No. 14._

_Khothbeh, or Sermon made at Jerusalem, the first Friday after Saladin
had taken Possession of that City, by Mohammed Ben Zeky._

Mohammed Ben Zeky ascended the mimber, or pulpit, and commenced the
khothbeh, or sermon, by reciting the surate _Falchah_ (the first of
the Koran) from the beginning to the end. Then he said: “May the crew
of the unjust perish! Praises be to God, the master of worlds!” Then
he read, 1st, the commencement of the surate _Alin’am_: “Praise to God
who has created the Heavens;” 2nd, a verse of the surate _Soubhana_:
“Praise to God who has no son;” 3rd, three verses of the surate
_Alkehef_: “Praises to God who has sent the book to his servant.”
Then he read, 1st, the verse: “Praise to God, and salvation to his
servants;” 2nd, a verse of the surate _Seba_: “Praises to God to
whom belongs all that is in heaven or earth;” 3rd, several verses of
the surate _Falhr_: “Praises to God the creator of the Heavens.” His
intention was to bring together all the _Temeh-houdah_ (praises which
are contained in the Koran). After this, he commenced the khothbeh in
these terms:—

“Praise to God, who has raised Islamism into glory by his aid; who has
abased polytheism by his power; who rules worldly things by his will;
who prolongs his blessings according to the measure of our gratitude;
who defeats infidels by his stratagems; who gives power to dynasties,
according to his justice; who has reserved future life for those who
fear him, by an effort of his goodness; who extends his shadow over
his servants; who has caused his religion to triumph over all others;
who gains the victory over his servants without any one being able to
oppose him; who triumphs in his caliph, without any one being able to
resist him; who orders what he wills, without any being able to make
objections to it; who judges according to his will, without any one
being able to avert the execution of his decrees. I praise this God
for having by his assistance rendered his elect victorious; for the
glory he has given them; for the aid he has granted to his defenders;
I praise him for having purified the house filled with pollution, from
the impieties of polytheism. I praise him inwardly and outwardly. I
give testimony that there is no other God but this God; that he is
the only one, and has no associate; the only one, the eternal one, who
begets not, neither is he begotten, and has no equal. I give testimony
that Mahomet is his servant and his messenger, this prophet who has
removed doubts, confounded polytheism, extinguished falsehood; who
travelled by night from Medina to Jerusalem; who ascended into the
heavens, and reached even the cedar Almontéhy. May the eternal felicity
of God be with him, with his successor Abou Bekr Alsadic, &c.

“O men! publish the extraordinary blessing by which God has made easy
to you the recapture and deliverance of this city which we had lost,
and has made it again the centre of Islamism, after having been during
nearly a hundred years in the hands of the infidels.

* * * * *

This house was built and its foundations laid for the glory of God and
in the fear of Heaven. For this house is the dwelling of Abraham; the
ladder of your prophet (peace be with him!); the kiblah towards which
you prayed at the commencement of Islamism, the abode of prophets,
the aim of saints, the place of revelation, the habitation of order
and defence; it is situated in the land of the gathering, the arena
of the meeting; it is of this blessed land of which God speaks in his
sacred book. It was in this mosque that Mahomet prayed with the angels
who approach God. It was this city to which God sent his servant, his
messenger, the word which he sent to Mary. The prophet he honoured with
a mission did not stray from the rank of his servant. For God said,
_the Messiah will not deny that he is the servant of God; God has no
son, and has no other God with him_. Certes, they have been in impiety,
they who have said that the Messiah, the son of Mary, was God.

“This house is the first of the two kiblah, the second of the mosques,
the third of the héramëin; it is not towards it that the people come
in crowds after the two mesdjed; it is towards it that the fingers are
pointed after the two places. [I suppose Mecca and Medina.] If you were
not of the number of the servants whom God has chosen, certes he would
not have favoured you particularly by this advantage which has been
granted to no other brave men, the honour of which no one can dispute
with you; how fortunate you are in being the soldiers of an army which
has made manifest the miracles of the prophet, which has made the
expeditions of Abou Bekr, the conquests of Omar, &c. God has rewarded
you by the best of rewards in that which you have done for his prophet.
He has been grateful for the courage you have shown in punishing
rebels; the blood which you have shed for him has been acceptable to
him; it has introduced you into the Paradise which is the abode of
the blessed; acknowledge, then, the value of this blessing, offer up
to him necessary thanksgivings; for God has shown for you a marked
beneficence in granting you this blessing, in selecting you for this
expedition. For the gates of Heaven have been opened for this conquest;
its splendour has cast a light which has penetrated even to the deepest
darkness; the angels who approach the Divine Majesty have rejoiced
at it; the eye of the prophets and the messengers has beheld it with
joy. Since, by the favour of God, you are the army which will conquer
Jerusalem at the end of time, the troop which will raise the standards
of the faith after the destruction of the prophecy.

* * * * *

This house, is it not that of which God spoke in his book? for he says,
Be he praised who made his servant travel by night,’ &c.; is this not
the house which the nations have revered; towards which the prophets
came, in which the four books sent from God have been read? Is this not
the house for which God stopped the sun, under Joshua, and retarded the
march of day, in order that his conquest should be easy, and should be
accelerated? Is this not the house which God committed to Moses, and
which he commanded his people to save; but, with the exception of two
men, these people would not; God was angry against these people, and
cast them into the desert, to punish them for their rebellion.

“I praise the God who has conducted you to the place from which he
banished the children of Israel; and yet these were distinguished above
other nations. God has seconded you in an enterprise in which he had
abandoned other nations that had preceded you; which has caused there
to be but one opinion amongst you, whilst formerly opinions differed;
rejoice that God has named you among those who are near him, and has
made of you his own army, after you became his soldiers by your own
free will. The angels (who were sent towards this house) have thanked
you for having brought hither the doctrine of the unity.

* * * * *

Now the powers of the heavens pray for you, and pour benedictions upon
you. Preserve this gift in you, by the fear of God. Whoever possesses
it is saved. Beware of the passions, of disobedience, of falling
back, of flying from an enemy. Are you eager to take advantage of the
opportunity to destroy what anguish remains? Fight for God as you
ought; sacrifice yourselves to please him, you his servants, since
you are of the number of the elect. Beware that the devil do not come
down among you again, and that irreligion introduce not itself into
your hearts. Did you figure to yourselves that your swords of steel,
your chosen horses, your untiring perseverance, have gained you this
victory? No, it was God; it was from him alone that your success
came. Beware, servants of God after having obtained this victory, of
becoming disobedient and rebellious; for then you will be like her
who cut to pieces that which she had spun, or like him to whom we
have sent our verses, and who has rejected them; the devil has laid
hold of him, and he has wandered from the faith. The holy war! the
holy war! that is the best of your worships, the most noble of your
customs; help God, and he will help you; hold to God, and he will hold
to you; remember him, and he will remember you; do good towards him,
and he will do good towards you; endeavour to cut off every diseased
member, to destroy even to the last enemy; purify the rest of the earth
of those nations with whom God and his messenger are angry. Lop off
the branches of impiety, and fear, for already the days have grown.
Vengeance of Mussulman attacks, of the Mahometan nation. God is great:
he gives conquests, he degrades impiety; learn that this is a great
opportunity—seize it; it is a prey, cast yourselves upon it; it is
a booty, get possession of it. It is an important business, apply
your whole means to it, give yourselves up to it entirely; put the
battalions of your tribes on the march for it. For this business draws
towards its end, and the treasuries are filled with wealth. God has
already given you the victory over these vile enemies. These enemies
were equal to you, or perhaps more numerous than you; but however that
might be, he has manifested that one of you is worth twenty other men.
God will aid you as you cause his orders to be obeyed, and abstain from
that which he has prohibited. He will strengthen all us Mussulmans by a
victory; if God helps you, you have no other conqueror to fear; but if
he withdraw his help from you, who will be he that shall help you after
him?”

Then the preacher prayed for the Imaun Alnassir, the caliph, and
said: “O God! eternalize the sultan, thy servant, who humbles himself
before thy majesty, who is grateful for thy blessings, who cherishes
the remembrance of thy favour. Preserve thy keen sword, thy brilliant
star, who protects and defends thy religion, who defends the harem! the
seid, the triumphant prince, the _reuniter_ of the word, of the faith
(that is to say, who has so acted that the Mussulman princes, with one
accord, with one unanimous feeling, marched against the infidels); the
exterminator of the cross, the good of the state and of religion (salah
eddounia wa eddyn). The sultan of the Mussulmans, the purifier of the
sacred house, Aboul Modhaffer Yous-ben-Ayoub, the verifier of the power
of the emir of the believers; O God! grant that thy angels may surround
his throne; make good the reward due to that which he has done for the
religion of Abraham; reward his actions for the sake of the Mussulman
religion. O God! prolong for Islamism,” &c.

_No. 15._

_Bull of Gregory VIII., A.D. 1187._

Gregory, bishop, servant of the servants of God; to all those of the
worshippers of Our Lord Jesus Christ to whom these letters shall come,
health and the apostolic benediction.

Having learnt the terrible severity of the judgments which the divine
hand has exercised over Jerusalem and the Holy Land, we have been, we
and our brethren, penetrated with such horror, afflicted with such
lively grief, that, in the painful uncertainty of what it would be
best for us to do on this occasion, we have only been able to partake
the sorrows of the psalmist, and to exclaim with him, “Lord, the
nations have invaded thy heritage, they have profaned thy holy temple;
Jerusalem is no more than a desert, and the bodies of the saints have
served as pasture to the beasts of the earth, and to the birds of the
heavens.” For in consequence of the intestine dissensions which the
wickedness of men, by the suggestion of the demon, had given birth to
in the Holy Land, behold Saladin, without any warning, at the head
of a formidable army, comes pouring down upon the city. The king and
the bishops, the Templars and the Hospitallers, the barons and the
people, hasten to the rescue, bearing with them the cross of the Lord,
that cross which, in memory of the passion of Christ, who was nailed
to it, and which thus purchased the redemption of the human race, was
regarded as the most secure rampart to be opposed to the attacks of the
infidels. The conflict begins; our brethren are conquered, the holy
cross falls into the hands of the enemies; the king is made prisoner,
the bishops are massacred, and such of the Christians as escape death,
cannot avoid slavery. Flight saves a few, and very few; and these tell
us that they saw the whole of the Templars and Hospitallers perish
before their eyes. We think it useless, beloved brethren, to inform you
how, after the destruction of the army, the enemies spread themselves
over the whole kingdom, and rendered themselves masters of most of the
cities, with the exception of a small number, which still resist. It is
here we are compelled to say with the prophet, “Who will change my eyes
into a fountain of tears, that I may weep night and day the massacre
of my people!” Nevertheless, far from allowing ourselves to be cast
down, or to be divided, we ought to be persuaded that these reverses
are only to be attributed to the anger of God, against the multitude
of our sins; that the most efficacious manner of obtaining the
remission of them is by tears and groans, and that at last, appeased
by our repentance, the mercy of the Lord will raise us up again, more
glorious for the abasement into which he has plunged us. Who could,
I say, withhold his tears in so great a disaster, not only according
to the principles of our divine religion, which teaches us to weep
with the afflicted, but further, from simple motives of humanity, when
considering the greatness of the peril, the ferocity of the barbarians,
thirsting for the blood of Christians, their endeavours to profane
holy things, and to annihilate the name of the true God, in a land in
which he was born; pictures which the imagination of the reader will
represent to him better than we can paint them. No; the tongue cannot
express, the senses cannot comprehend what our affliction has been,
what that of the Christian people must be, at learning that this land
is now suffering as it suffered under its ancient inhabitants; this
land illustrated by so many prophets, from which issued the lights of
the world; and, what is still greater and more ineffable, where was
incarnate God the creator of all things; where, by an infinite wisdom,
and an incomprehensible mercy, he consented to subject himself to the
infirmities of the flesh, to suffer hunger, thirst, the punishment
of the cross, and by his death and glorious resurrection, effected
our salvation. We ought not then to attribute our disasters to the
injustice of the judge who chastises, but rather to the iniquity of
the people who have sinned; since we see in Scripture that, when the
Jews returned to the Lord, he put their enemies to flight, and that
one of his angels was sufficient to annihilate the formidable army of
Sennacherib. But this land has devoured its inhabitants; it has not
been able to enjoy a long tranquillity, and the transgressors of our
divine law have not preserved it long; all thus giving this example
and this instruction to such as sigh after the heavenly Jerusalem,
that it is only by the practice of good works, and amidst numerous
temptations, that they can attain it. The people of these countries had
beforehand reason to fear that which has now happened to them, when
the infidels got possession of a part of the frontier cities. Would to
God that they had then had recourse to penitence, and that they had
appeased, by a sincere repentance, the God they had offended! for the
vengeance of that God is always only delayed. He does not surprise the
sinner; he gives him time for repentance, until at length his exhausted
mercy gives place to his justice. But we who, amidst the dissolution
spread over this country, ought to give our attention, not only to the
iniquities of its inhabitants, out to our own, and to those of all
Christian people, and who ought, still further, to dread the loss of
those of the faithful that still remain in Judæa, and the ravages with
which the neighbouring countries are threatened, amidst dissensions
which prevail between Christian kings and princes, and between
villages and cities; we who see nothing on all sides but scandals and
disorders, we ought to weep with the prophet, and repeat with him,
“Truth and the knowledge of God are not upon earth; I see nothing
reign in their place but falsehood, homicide, adultery, and thirst for
blood.” It is everywhere urgent to act, to efface our sins by voluntary
penance, and, by the help of true piety, to return to the Lord our
God, in order that, corrected of our vices, and seeing the malice and
ferocity of the enemy, we may do for the support of the cause of the
Lord, as much as the infidel does not fear to attempt to do every day
against him. Think, my beloved brethren, for what purpose you came into
this world, and how you ought to leave it; reflect that you will thus
pass through all that concerns you. Employ, then, the time you have
to dispose of in good actions, and in performing penance; give that
which belongs to you, because you did not make yourself, because you
have nothing which is yours alone, and because the faculty of creating
a hand-worm is above all the powers of the earth. We will not say,
reject us, Lord, but permit us to enter into the celestial granary that
you possess; place us amidst those divine fruits, which dread neither
the injuries of time nor the attempts of thieves. We will labour to
reconquer that land upon which the truth descended from heaven, and
where it did not refuse to endure the opprobrium of the cross for
our salvation. We will not hold in view either a love of riches or a
perishable glory, but your holy will, O my God! you who have taught
us to love our brothers as ourselves, and to consecrate to you those
riches, the disposal of which, with us, is so often independent of
thy will. It is not more astonishing to see this land struck by the
hand of God, than it is to see it afterwards delivered by his mercy.
The will of the Lord alone can save it; but it is not permitted to
ask him why he has acted thus. Perhaps it has been his will to prove
us, and to teach us that he who, when the time of repentance is come,
embraces it with joy, and sacrifices himself for his brothers, although
he may die young, his life comprises a great number of years. Behold
with what zeal the Maccabees were inflamed for their holy law, and
the deliverance of their brethren, when they precipitated themselves,
without hesitation, amidst the greatest perils, sacrificing their
wealth and their lives, and exhorting each other, mutually, by such
speeches as these: “Let us prepare ourselves, let us show ourselves
courageous, because it is better to perish in fight than to behold the
evils of our nation, and the profanation of holy things.” And they only
lived under the law of Moses, whilst you have been enlightened by the
incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the example of so many
martyrs. Show courage, then; do not fear to sacrifice these terrestrial
possessions which can last but so short a time, and in exchange
for which we are promised eternal ones, above the conception of the
senses, and which, in the opinion of the apostle, are worthy of all the
sacrifices we can make to obtain them.

We promise, then, to all those who, with a contrite heart and an humble
mind, will not fear to undertake this painful voyage, and who will be
determined so to do by motives of a sincere faith, and with the view of
obtaining the remission of their sins, a plenary indulgence for their
faults, and the life everlasting which will follow.

Whether they perish there, or whether they return, let them know that,
by the mercy of the all-powerful God, and by the authority of the holy
apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own, they are liberated from all
other penance that may have been imposed upon them, provided always
that they may have made an entire confession of their sins.

The property of the Crusaders and their families will remain under the
special protection of the archbishops, bishops, and other prelates of
the Church of God.

No examination shall be made as to the validity of the rights of
possession of a Crusader, with regard to any property whatever, until
his return or his decease be certain; and till that time his property
shall be protected and respected.

He cannot be compelled to pay interest, if he owe any to anybody.

The Crusaders are not to march clothed in sumptuous habits, with
dogs, birds, or other such objects, which only display luxury and
ostentation; but they are to have what is necessary, are to be clothed
simply, and are rather to resemble men who are performing a penance,
than such as are in search of a vain glory.

_Given at Ferrara, the 4th of the calends of November._

* * * * *

[Then follows the ordinance for a general fast, to appease the anger of
God, in order that he may enable them to recover Jerusalem.]

The anger of the Supreme Judge being NEVER so effectively appeased as
when we seek to subdue our carnal desires,—

Consequently, as we make no doubt that the misfortunes which have
recently fallen upon Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the invasion of
the Saracens, have been produced by the crimes of the inhabitants and
those of the Christian people; we, with the unanimous advice of our
brethren, and the approbation of a great number of bishops, order that,
from this day, for five years, the fast of Lent shall be observed every
Friday, during the whole day.

We further order, that in all places where divine service is
celebrated, it shall be at nine o’clock, and that from the Advent of
the Lord to his Nativity.

Every one, without distinction, abstaining from eating flesh on the
Friday and Saturday of each week, we and our brethren further interdict
the use of it on Tuesdays among ourselves, unless personal infirmities,
a festival, or some other good cause excuse us; hoping by this means
that the Lord will be appeased, and will leave us his benediction.

Such are our regulations on this subject, and whoever shall infringe
them shall be considered as a transgressor of the fast of Lent.

_Given at Ferrara, the 4th of the calends of November._

_No. 16._

_The Council of Paris, held in 1188, under the Pontificate of Pope
Clement III. The Tenths, called Saladin Tenths, were then decreed,
to provide for the Expenses of the War against Saladin, King of the
Turks._

In the month of March of the year of grace 1188, towards Mid-Lent,
a general council, to which were summoned the archbishops, bishops,
abbots, and barons of the kingdom, was convoked at Paris by King
Philip. An infinite number of soldiers and people there took the cross.
It was resolved, with the consent of the clergy and the people, that,
considering the urgent wants then experienced (the king having nothing
more at heart than the undertaking of the voyage to Jerusalem), a
general tenth, from which no one should be exempt, which was named the
_Saladin tenth_,[135] should be pre-levied for that year only.

_Establishment of the Tenth._—In the name of the holy and indivisible
Trinity, greeting. It is ordered by us, Philip, king of France, with
the advice of the archbishops, bishops, and barons of our dominions,
that the bishops, prelates, and clerks of the churches convoked, and
the soldiers who have taken the cross, shall not be troubled for the
repayment of the debts they may have before contracted, with Jews or
Christians, until two years have revolved, reckoning from the first
festival of All Saints which shall follow the decree of our said lord
the king: so that at the following All Saints the creditors shall
receive a third of that which is due to them, and thus, from year to
year, at the same period, until the entire acquittal of the debt. The
interests for anterior debts shall run no longer, dating from the day
on which the debtor shall have taken the cross. The Crusader who is
a legitimate heir, son or son-in-law of a soldier not a Crusader, or
of a widow, shall procure for his father or his mother the advantage
granted by the present decree, provided he be not in the enjoyment of
other revenues than that arising from the labour of his father and
mother; but if their son or son-in-law was not at their charge, or
even if he did not bear arms and the cross, they shall not enjoy the
said advantage; but the debtors who shall have lands and revenues,
within the fortnight which follows the approaching festival of John
the Baptist, shall point out to his creditors the lands and revenues
upon which they shall be able to recover their debts, on the terms
above expressed, and according to the form prescribed, by means of
the lords in the jurisdiction of whom these lands shall be. The lords
shall have no power to oppose this consignment, short of satisfying the
creditor themselves. Those who shall not have lands or revenues enough
to form such a consignment, shall furnish their creditors guarantees
and securities for the acquittal of their debts at the term fixed; if
within the fortnight after the festival of St. John the Baptist, they
have not satisfied their creditors by a consignment of lands, or by
guarantees and securities, if they have no property, as it has been
ordered, they shall not enjoy the privilege granted to others. If a
clerk or a crusade soldier be the debtor of a clerk or of a crusade
soldier, he shall not be troubled before the next All Saints, provided
he can furnish him with a good guarantee for payment at that time.

If one of the Crusaders, eight days before the Purification of the
Virgin, or later, consign, in favour of his creditor, some money, some
work, or some bill, the creditor cannot be forced on that account
to consider him liberated. The bargain by which a man has bought of
another Crusader the annual produce of an estate is good and valid. If
a soldier or a clerk has engaged or consigned his lands or his revenue
for some years to another Crusader, or to a clerk or a soldier not
crossed, the debtor, for that year, shall collect the produce of the
lands or the revenues; but the creditor, after the expiration of the
years during which he has enjoyed the consignment or the guarantee,
shall continue to enjoy it a year longer, to compensate for the loss
of the first year; so that, however, the creditor shall have for
that first year half of the revenue for the cultivation, if he has
cultivated the vines and the lands which were consigned to him as
security. All bargains which shall have been made eight days before
the Purification of the Virgin, or which shall be made after, shall be
authentic. It will be necessary for all the debts coming within the
favour of the present decree, that the debtor shall give a guarantee
as good, or even better than that which he had given before. If the
parties are not agreed upon the goodness of the guarantee, it shall
be referred to the lord of the creditor; if he do not answer to this
demand, the affair shall be taken before the suzerain. If the lords
or princes under whose direction the creditors or the debtors may be,
refuse to give their hand to the execution of that which is ordered by
the present decree, on account of the privileges given to the debtor,
or of the consignments to be made, and if, warned by the metropolitan
or the bishop, they have not done it within forty days, they will
be liable to excommunication; but if the lord or the suzerain make
it his duty to show, in presence of the metropolitan or the bishop,
that he has not failed in this formality towards the creditor, or
even the debtor, and that he is ready to execute what is ordered, the
metropolitan or the bishop cannot excommunicate him. No Crusader,
whether clerk, soldier, or other, shall be held responsible but for
debts already demanded legally at the time at which they shall have
taken the cross; he shall not be passible to others before his return
from the Holy Land. They who are not Crusaders shall pay, at least
this year, the tenth of all their property and revenues, except the
monks of the order of Citeaux, of the Chartreux, of Fontevraud, and
the lazar-houses, with regard to the property which belongs to them.
Nobody shall meddle with the property of the communes, unless it be
the lord of whom they hold. For the rest, every one shall retain the
rights he had before in the commune. The grand justiciary of an estate
shall always levy the tenths of it. Let it be observed, that they
who are subject to pay the tenth, shall pay it upon all their goods
and revenues, without beforehand subtracting their debts. It is not
till after they have paid the tenth that they may pay their creditors
from the remainder of their property; all laymen, as well soldiers as
those that are subject to the _taille_ (poll-tax, or something like
land-tax), upon taking the oath, under pain of anathema, and clerks
under pain of excommunication, shall pay the tenth. The soldier who is
not crossed shall pay to his lord who is crossed, and of whom he holds,
the tenth of his own property and of the fief which he holds of him. If
he holds no fief of him, he will pay him the tenth of his own property,
and will pay the tenth to those of whom he holds directly. If he holds
of no lord, he will pay the tenth of his own property to him upon whose
fief he lives. If a man possessing an estate in proper, finds upon
his estate tenths belonging to another than to him to whom he owes
them, and if the proprietor can prove that they legitimately belong to
him, the former cannot retain these tenths. The crossed soldier, a
legitimate heir or son-in-law of a non-crossed soldier, or of a widow,
will receive the tenth of his father or mother. Nobody shall lay hands
on the property of archbishops, bishops, chapters, or churches that
depend upon them, but the archbishops, bishops, chapters, or churches
themselves. If the bishops collect the tenths, they shall remit them
to those who are appointed to receive them. The Crusader subject to
the _taille_, or to the tenth, and who shall refuse to pay them, shall
be arrested, and placed at the disposal of him to whom he is indebted.
He who has arrested him cannot be excommunicated for doing so. He who
shall pay his tenth with readiness, according to the law and without
constraint, shall be recompensed by God.

_No. 17._

_Note upon the Greek Fire, taken from the Manuscript Life of Saladin,
by Renaudot._

It is certain that the artificial fire called _Greek fire_, _sea fire_,
or _liquid fire_, the composition of which is found in the Greek and
Latin historians, was very different from that which the Orientals
began at this time to make use of, and the effect of which was the more
surprising, from the cause of it being entirely unknown; for whereas
the first was prepared of wax, pitch, sulphur, and other combustible
materials, there was nothing in this but naphtha or petrol, of which
there were springs near Bagdad, like those of which the ancients
speak, near Ecbatana and on the frontiers of Media. All naturalists
agree that this bituminous matter takes fire very easily, and that it
is impossible to extinguish it with anything but sand, vinegar, and
urine. An experiment was made with it before Alexander, by lighting a
great quantity of it by trains, which burnt for a long time without
being able to be extinguished; a buffoon, even, having been rubbed
with it, the fire injured him so seriously that there was great
difficulty in saving his life. And yet, notwithstanding the ancients
were acquainted with it, it is not known that they frequently employed
it in war, nor that it entered into the composition of the true Greek
fire, invented, according to common opinion, by Callinichus, under
Constantine Pogonatus, but which is, notwithstanding, more ancient
by many centuries. Thus it is very probable that the Orientals, not
having made any use of it before this siege, Ebn-el-Mejas employed it
successfully as a new invention; and that the Christians, on account of
the resemblance, called it the Greek fire, from the idea they conceived
that it might be the same as that with which the whole Levant was
acquainted. This fire having been in use for the defence of besieged
places, was called _oleum incendiarium_, _oleum medicum_; and it was
employed in the time of Valentinian, under whom Vegetius, a military
author, who gives the composition of it, wrote his work. Æneas, an
ancient author quoted by Polybius, also speaks of it in his _Treatise
upon the Defence of Cities_, and Callinichus added nothing new to it,
except the machines, or copper pipes, by means of which they employed
it for the first time at sea, and burnt the Arabian fleet near Cyzicus.
The Greeks continued afterwards to use these machines, with which they
armed their fire-ships, and never communicated the knowledge of it
to any other nation; any more than did the Mahometans their naphtha
fire, when they had once learned the practice. Thus the names became
confounded by the ignorance of the two nations; the Greeks calling,
with much reason, the artificial fire of the Mussulmans, _Media fire_,
and the Latins comprising both under the name of _Greek fire_; as the
Orientals afterwards called gunpowder _naphtha_, from the relation they
found between it and that fire which it made them abandon.

_No. 18._

_Memoir upon the Forest of Saron, or the Enchanted Forest of Tasso._

Most of the places in Palestine, in which battles were fought between
the Franks and the Saracens, were, towards the end of the eighteenth
century, the theatre of many conflicts between the French and the
Mussulmans. The French, in 1799, put the Syrians to flight in the
neighbourhood of Arsur, on the same spot where Richard gained a great
victory over Saladin. We feel pleasure in presenting to our readers the
very interesting Memoir of M. Paultre, who made the campaign in Syria,
and who identified the forest of Saron, or the enchanted forest of
Tasso.

“The 24 Ventose, an 7 (14th of March, 1799), our army, leaving Jaffa
to march upon St. Jean d’Acre, after an hour and a half’s progress,
arrived on the edge of a torrent, which flowed from Lidda, and fell
into the sea at a short distance on our left; the crossing of this
torrent presented many difficulties to our artillery.

“Before us was a plain of about a league in width, but which, on our
left, extended to the sea, where it was inclosed by _dunes_, or small
sand-hills, covered with verdure; whilst on our right, it extended for
two or three leagues, and was lost in the declivities of the mountains
of Gofna and Naplouse, called by the Hebrews, Mount Garizim. The
torrent we had just passed was the ancient boundary between the tribes
of Dan and Benjamin with that of Ephraim, on the territory of which we
were about to march.

“The plain appeared to be closed before us by a wooded ascent,
extending from the principal chain which ran along the plains of
Palestine, on our left, quite to the seashore; our route was through
these woods, and it would have been dangerous to approach them without
having reconnoitred them; the more so from our knowing the Syrian army
to be at a small distance from us, and it might be expected they had
thrown some parties into them, to oppose our passage, and take the
advantage which difficult and covered places might offer them. This
forest, placed upon a very elevated hill, presented to us a picturesque
aspect, which pleasingly recalled the sites of our beautiful wooded
countries of France.

“The French general availed himself of the moment which the passage
of the torrent retarded the march of the army, to have the different
issues of this forest reconnoitred by our vanguard, and to assure
himself that the roads were practicable. At nine o’clock in the
morning, the general who commanded the cavalry informed him that the
route was free, that there was no party of the enemy in the woods, and
that the army might advance with safety. According to this advice, the
march was resumed, and after proceeding for an hour over a level plain,
we began to enter the wood, and ascend a hill, where the road became
very difficult for our pieces and our carriages. The route we followed
appeared to be very little frequented, although our guides assured us
it was the high road to Jaffa, St. Jean d’Acre, and Damascus. Sands,
rocks, bushes, ravines, and steep hills, rendered our march very
painful; it might have been said that routes had never been traced in
these cantons; and I cannot better compare that which we followed than
to the cross-roads of our least-frequented forests in France. Branches
of trees, whole trunks, fallen from age or accident, with enormous
rocks, at every step barred the way, and our sappers had infinite
trouble to clear a passage for our carriages and loaded camels. If the
enemy had known how to take advantage of the circumstance, and had
augmented our difficulties by some redoubts or barricades of trees,
it would have been impossible for us to have forced the passage; some
parties of infantry, or only some armed peasants, would have been
able to do us much injury, and entirely have stopped the march of
our army, in places already nearly impassable by their nature. But
happily, we had to do with enemies who had no suspicion of even the
first elements of military tactics; for, whilst our columns traversed
with so much difficulty these woody and rocky mountains, where it
would have been so easy to stop us, and fight us with advantage, they
awaited us peaceably, four leagues further on, in a clear plain, where
our artillery and our manœuvres gave us every advantage over them;
as they had good reason to know on the morrow. After a painful march
of two leagues, across the forest, the army halted on issuing from
the wood, and took up a position on the northern side of the hill,
near the village of Meski, where our headquarters were established.
A torrent flowed at a small distance in front of our position; and
our light troops, who had already passed it, informed us that they
could perceive, in a vast plain which extended from the side of St.
Jean d’Acre, parties of Syrian and Mameluke cavalry, which indicated
the neighbourhood of the enemy’s army. Dispositions were then taken
to keep us in readiness, in case they should march to attack us; but
the evening and the night passed without a blow being struck; and,
on the morrow, after having crossed the torrent without opposition,
we presented ourselves before them in battle-array in the plain of
Quoquoun, at the foot of the mountains of Naplouse, and, after a slight
affair, we drove them back to the plain of Esdrelon, whence they
effected their retreat upon St. Jean d’Acre.

“_Description of the Forest of Saron._—The woods we had just crossed
are known in the country under the name of the Forest of Saron; they
extend over a vast hill, which is one of the western counterforts of
the chain which separates the valley of the Jordan from the plains
of Palestine, and which is itself a prolongation of Mount Libanus.
This hill, designated by the Hebrews, Mount Saron, is detached from
the principal chain below the city of Naplouse, and extends to the
sea, where it terminates by low rocks and hills, between Jaffa and
Arsouf, the ancient Apollonius; it may be of eight or nine leagues in
length, from Mount Garizim, where it quits the principal chain, to the
seashore; its mean width is between two and three leagues, and its
height is progressive, from Naplouse to the shore of the Mediterranean,
where it terminates in rocks and hills of a moderate height. It is
bordered on the north by the torrent of Arsouf (Naher-el-Hadder),
which has its source below Naplouse, in Mount Garizim; passes near
the ruins of ancient Antipatris, and falls into the sea near Arsouf,
after a course of seven or eight leagues. To the south, it is parallel
with the torrent of Lidda, the ancient Disopolis, which rises in Mount
Acrabatene, off Jericho, near Gofna and Gazer, passes Lidda, and falls
into the sea at about a league north of Jaffa, after a course of from
eight to ten leagues. These two torrents flow parallel with each other,
and make almost the same turns, being directed by the declivity of
the same hill. The mean distance between their beds is from five to
six leagues, which was the width of the land of the ancient tribe of
Ephraim, upon the centre of which extended Mount Saron, whose base,
two or three leagues wide, terminates at these torrents, by two little
lateral plains, of a league in width, or thereabouts.

“The forest covers the side of the hill, from the principal chain to
within three-quarters of a league of the seashore; which gives it a
length of from seven to ten leagues, and from two to three in width.
The chain of Mounts Acrabatene and Garizim appeared to me barren, or
covered only with brushwood. The declivities of Mount Saron are more
steep and broken on the north than on the south side; its base is a
limestone rock, which, in many places of the forest, rises above the
surface in great blocks, heaped one upon another. In general, I cannot
better compare the sites of this part of Palestine, than to those of
the environs of Fontainebleau. The forest of Saron is composed solely
of oaks, of the species designated by the ancients, _Quercus cerrus_;
its leaves are more smooth and less indented than those of our common
oaks. The capsule of the acorns is of very large dimensions; I have
seen many of from ten to twelve lines in diameter, at their opening,
and which had contained acorns of that size; the scales or shells which
cover this capsule were not rounded and placed one upon another, as
with that of the oaks of Burgundy, but were terminated in points, and
bent outwards in a volute form, or like little hooked points, which
has obtained for this oak the name of _Quercus cunita_; the leaves
were covered with those tubercles, known in commerce as gall-nuts.
These oaks did not appear to me to be susceptible of gaining any
considerable size; most of them, although announcing great age, might
be embraced by a single man, and had, at most, a square of from seven
to eight inches. The trunk was knotty and not very straight, and in
few cases was more than from twenty-five to thirty feet high; their
top was rather orbicular than pyramidal, like that of our apple and
chestnut-trees of Europe. Their bark was, however, more smooth and less
furrowed than that of our oaks of the same age. In general, the growth
of these trees was nearly like that in the gravelly woods of the dry
and elevated coasts of Lower Burgundy, and I believe that the same
cause, want of depth of vegetable earth and moisture, may produce this
resemblance, although under different climates. And yet I suspect the
wood to be very hard, and of good quality; but being knotty, twisted,
and of small size, it can be of very little use for building purposes:
thus, Solomon, to build his temple, was obliged to get his timber
from Libanus, whilst the forest of Saron was at the very gates of
Jerusalem. Our first Crusaders, at the time of the siege of the holy
city, being obliged to bring thither the wood for the construction
of their machines and towers of attack, complained that this forest
could only furnish them with pieces of small dimension, which rendered
their building labours long and difficult. Perhaps, since that period,
there has been no occasion for having recourse to this forest, which
now is only used by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, who cut, on
its outskirts, the wood they stand in need of. The government takes
no notice of a property which can be turned to no public profit;
considering the difficulty of transporting squared timber, in a country
where carriages are not used, and where everything is carried upon the
backs of camels; besides, so little wood is used for firing in hot
climates, that this forest cannot have much value for that purpose even.

“I have now to prove that this forest of Saron was that in which our
first Crusaders, at the siege of Jerusalem in 1099, went to cut their
timber for the construction of the machines and towers they employed in
the attack of the city.

“According to William of Tyre, it was a Syrian who pointed it out to
the duke of Normandy and the count of Flanders. This historian places
it at a distance of seven or eight miles from Jerusalem, and remarks
that the trees of this forest being of small growth, and not capable
of furnishing the strong timber of which they stood in need, the
difficulty of procuring any other in a country in which woods were very
rare, obliged them to form these machines of pieces fastened together,
which required much time and labour.

“Casu affuit quidam fidelis indigena natione Syrus, qui in valles
quasdam secretiores, sex aut septem ab urbe distantes milliaribus
quosdam de principibus direxit, ubi arbores, etsi non ad conceptum opus
aptas penitùs, tamen ad aliquem modum bonas invenerunt plures.”

William of Tyre is mistaken in the distances, when stating this forest
to be six or seven miles from Jerusalem, whilst it is really ten or
eleven leagues from it. He places it likewise in a deep valley, which
could only be correct if considered with reference to the mountains of
Gosna and Naplouse, from which the Crusaders might have descended to
cut the wood of which they stood in need.

“Raoul of Caën, equally a contemporary historian, is more exact in the
placing of this forest, and proves to us in an irrefutable manner, that
it was that of Saron in which the Crusaders went to cut the timbers for
the siege; for he places it at the foot of the mountains of Naplouse,
exactly where it now exists.

“Lucus erat in montibus, et montes ad Hyerusalem remoti ei, quà modò
Neapolis, olim Sebasta, ante Sychar dictus est, propiores, adhuc ignota
nostratibus via, nunc celebris et fermè peregrinatium unica.”—_Rad.
Cad._ cap. 121.

“In fact, to come from St. Jean d’Acre to Jerusalem, it is necessary
to pass through this forest; and I do not know how the Crusaders could
pass it without observing it, in their march from Antioch to the holy
city. Apparently having followed the shores of the sea from Cæsarea
to Jaffa, and the high hills that were on their left, prevented their
seeing it.

“Le Perè Maimbourg does better; knowing that Palestine is a country
in which woods have at all times been rare, in his History of the
Crusades,’ he doubts the existence of this forest, which is, to the
best of my belief, the only one in these cantons.

“Tasso, whose poetical and rich imagination delighted in creating so
many wonderful things, was not stopped by such trifling considerations,
and in his _Jerusalem Delivered_, the forest of Saron has supplied him
with one of the finest episodes of his poem.

“I must here hazard some ideas upon the origin of the name of the
forest, of the city, and of the country of Saron. M. D’Anville, in his
map of Palestine, gives to the part of the territory of the tribe of
Ephraim, comprised between the torrent of Lidda and that of Apollonias,
the name of _Saronas_, which he writes as the name of the country; and
it is precisely on this spot that the forest of Saron exists, of which,
perhaps, M. D’Anville had no kind of knowledge. He likewise places
between these two torrents above Lidda, a city called Thamnath Sara, in
a country which he denominates _Tamnitica_, which now forms part of the
forest where Mount Saron again unites with the principal chain.

“In the map of the Holy Land, by M. Robert, after the manuscripts of
the Sieurs Sanson, there is a city of Sarona, situated between Lidda
and Antipatris, towards the centre of the present forest. He makes this
city a royal city of the Hebrews. He places, as M. D’Anville does, the
city of Thamnath Sara; and at a short distance to the north, a city of
Ozensara.

“The resemblance of these different names leads me to think they may
be all formed from the primitive _Sar_, which, in many languages,
signifies oaks, woods, forests as Diodorus points out, in book v.,
when saying that the Gauls gave the name of _Saronides_ to certain
philosophers of their country, because they dwelt in forests of oaks,
and taught under the shade of those trees. We have preserved this _sar_
in the word _sarman_, the wood of the vine; in _serpe_ (or _sarpe_, low
Breton), an instrument to cut wood; _surbacane_, a perforated stick,
to throw small arrows or other projectiles; _sarse_, a wooden cask;
_esserter_, or _essarter_, to pull up bushes in a place about to be
cultivated.

“I leave it to pens more versed than mine in the science of etymology,
to follow this subject in a more learned and certain manner.

_No. 19._

_Ralph Dicet._

Ralph Dicet was of London, and lived, as it is said, in the reign of
John; he was a man remarkable for his piety and learning.

He says: “In 1185, the king of England (Henry II.) convoked the
conventual abbots, the counts and barons, near the Fountain of the
Clerks,[136] at London.

“After having heard the patriarch, and the master of the Hospitallers,
the king entreated all who were present to send to Jerusalem all the
assistance in their power. They then deliberated whether it was proper
for the king to go in person to Palestine, or whether he ought to
remain in England, to govern it, as he had engaged to do, before the
assembled church. The king promised to furnish succours, in men and
money, to repress all violences and iniquities of every kind, and that
equity and mercy should preside over all judgments. It appeared most
prudent for the king to govern his kingdom with suitable moderation,
and to defend it from the irruptions of the barbarians.

“In the same year, the kings of France and England had an interview at
Gisors, where they received the cross from the hands of the archbishop
of Tyre. It was agreed that all the French Crusaders should wear a
red cross, those of England a white cross, and those of the counts of
Flanders a green one.[137]

Ralph says that when the cross was taken in England, a general tenth
upon all property was levied, for the assistance of Jerusalem. This
levy was made with so much violence as to terrify both the clergy and
the people. Under the title of alms, it was enforced with a spirit of
exaction and rapacity.

After this observation, the historian places the letters patent of
Philip, king of France, and Richard, king of England, which order that
the Crusaders should set out from both countries in the octave of
Easter, under pain of excommunication and interdiction; and forbid any
one to do injury to the Crusaders during their absence. These letters
are dated 30th December.

Ralph Dicet’s work terminates in the year 1199. It is excellent for
dates, and for many passages of it.

_No. 20._

_Ralph of Coggershall._

Ralph of Coggershall, an Englishman by birth, flourished about the year
1220, in the reign of Henry III., son of John. He was of the order of
Citeaux. His merit and his learning raised him to the dignity of abbot
of the monastery of Coggershall, in the county of Essex. He is the
author of many works.

D. Martenne, when publishing Ralph’s “Chronicon Anglicanum,” is
astonished, and apparently with reason, that the English, who are so
jealous of the glory of their country, have shown such neglect for the
works of this author, whom their scholars value so highly.

Ralph, like the other chroniclers, is dry and brief, and it is not
before the invasion of Palestine by Saladin that he abandons the style
of the chronicler to assume that of the historian.

After having spoken of the arrival of the kings of France and England
in Sicily, of that which Richard did in the isle of Cyprus, of the
victory which this prince gained over the Saracen vessels before
landing at Acre, of the siege and reduction of that place, of the
divisions which broke out between Philip Augustus and Richard, of the
taking of several maritime cities by Richard, and of the death of the
marquis of Montferrat, Ralph of Coggershall relates that the duke of
Burgundy, left in Palestine by Philip Augustus, who had returned home,
came to join Richard, in order to fight together against the enemies
of Christ; and that it was resolved to go and besiege Jerusalem. He
describes the victory which Richard gained over a rich caravan which
was on its way to that city. He says, that while this prince was in
his camp, before the castle of Ernald, and the duke of Burgundy, with
his troops, was in the fortress of Betenoble, a spy came to warn the
king that in the night he had heard some men and camels come down from
the mountains, and that he had followed them. He added, that he had
discovered they were sent by Saladin to the duke of Burgundy, and that
the camels, to the number of five, were loaded with gold, silver, and
silken vestments. The spy had orders from the king to take with him
some of the king’s guards, and lie in ambush for the messengers of
Saladin on their return. All which he did; he surprised them, took
them, and brought them to the king. Richard drew from one of them by
torture the secret intrusted to them. He acknowledged that the sultan
had sent them to the duke. On the following day Richard sent for the
duke, the patriarch, and the prior of Bethlehem. He had a private
conference with them, and swore, before them, on the Gospel, that he
was ready to go with his army and besiege Jerusalem, or Babylonia, or
Berytus, without the possession of which places the king could not be
crowned. Richard, after having taken this oath, desired the duke to
take his. The duke refused, because the Templars and the French had
assured him he should incur the anger of Philip, if Richard, by their
means, triumphed in Jerusalem. Richard flew into a great rage, treated
the duke as a traitor, and reproached him with receiving presents from
Saladin. The duke denied all he was accused of. Then Richard sent
for the messengers of Saladin. When they had been introduced, and
had revealed their secret, the king ordered his guards to shoot them
to death with arrows in presence of the whole army; which was done,
without the troops of Richard or of the duke knowing the cause of this
severity, or whence these messengers came, or what they had done. The
duke of Burgundy, much ashamed, immediately retired with his troops,
and took the road to Acre. Richard, upon hearing of this retreat,
instantly sent messengers to the guards of the city, forbidding them to
allow any Frenchman to enter. The duke encamped without the walls. The
king struck his camp on the following day; and, following the duke, he
also pitched his tents on the outside of the city.

Ralph then gives long details of the battle of Jaffa, which took place
soon after. As this battle is one of those in which the valour and
skill of Richard were displayed with the greatest advantage, and as the
historians we have followed in our account of the third crusade, have
only presented us with inexact details of this event, we think it but
justice to the lion-hearted king to give an extract from that which
Ralph says of it.

Richard had been reposing with his army three days before Ptolemaïs,
when he was informed that Saladin was besieging Jaffa with all his
troops; and that the city would soon be taken, and the garrison
slaughtered, if he did not afford the besieged prompt assistance.
Richard, afflicted with this news, endeavoured to bring back the duke
of Burgundy to sentiments of concord; but this prince rejected all
his advances, and set out with his troops that same night for Tyre.
Shortly after arriving there, he finished his life miserably in the
delirium of a fever; which Ralph considers as a just chastisement from
heaven Richard embarks with a part of his army, and trusts himself to
the seas; but the vessels were driven towards the isle of Cyprus, by
contrary winds and the fury of the waves, so that they who remained
on land believed that the king had retreated secretly. This likewise
accounts for some authors having said that Richard went to the isle of
Cyprus. The king, and those who accompanied him, after having struggled
against the winds and waves for three days, at length succeeded, by
rowing obliquely, in anchoring with three vessels in the port of Jaffa.

Saladin, by repeated assaults, had already rendered himself master of
the city, and had put to death all the infirm and the wounded. The
garrison had retired into the castle, and were already thinking of
surrendering by capitulation, when the patriarch, who went freely from
one army to the other, told them that Saladin’s soldiers had resolved
to kill them all, to avenge their relations and friends, whom Richard
had put to death without pity on several occasions; and that they
would not escape death, if even Saladin should grant them permission
to retire. In spite of this information, the garrison hesitated, and
saw no hope of avoiding the fate which awaited them, when the vessels
of the king appeared in the port. This sight restored their courage.
On his part, Richard, perceiving that the fortress of the city was not
taken, jumped on shore fully armed, followed by his troops, and like a
furious lion, rushes amidst the hosts of enemies that cover the shore.
He advances audaciously, through the arrows which pour upon him from
all sides, cutting down all in his way. The Turks, unable to stand
against such an attack, and believing that Richard had brought a more
numerous army with him, precipitately abandoned the siege, and not
without experiencing a great loss. They were so terrified, that nothing
could stop them before they had got safely within the walls of Rœmula.
The king, after this encounter, went boldly and pitched his tents
under the walls of the city, in a plain near to Saint Abacue, for the
Crusaders could not remain in the city on account of the odour arising
from the dead killed on both sides, which had been placed, by mistake,
by the side of a number of carcasses of pigs.

When it was announced to Saladin, on the following day, that
Richard had arrived with only eighty soldiers, and the four hundred
cross-bowmen who formed his guard, he broke into a great rage with his
army, for having fled before so small a number. He immediately ordered
his cavalry to return to Jaffa, and to bring him, the next day, the
king alive and a captive.

That night Richard reposed tranquilly in his camp, suspecting nothing;
when, at daybreak, the infidels surrounded his camp so completely, that
there was no passage by which he could take refuge in the city. Three
thousand Saracens entered Jaffa; and the Christians, awakened by noise
and cries, were struck with terror at finding themselves enveloped on
all sides.

At the sight of such a sudden danger, Richard quickly assumes his
armour, mounts on horseback, and banishing all fear, appears, on the
contrary, more bold in proportion with the number of his enemies. He
animates his men to the fight; he tells them they ought not to fear
death when they have to defend their religion, and avenge the insults
offered to Christ; that it would be more glorious for them to fall for
the law of Christ, and in falling, courageously to strike down his
enemies, than to give themselves basely up to them, or to seek safety
in a flight which was become impossible. Whilst addressing them thus,
Richard ranged his companions in a close battalion, so that, during
the combat, the enemy might be able to find no open space through
which to break them. He then caused to be planted, at the foot of
every one, tent-poles, which served them for a rampart. Whilst they
were thus employed, as well as the time permitted, and that, on their
side, the infidels, armed and waited, talking among themselves, one
of the chamberlains of the king rushed from the city, and arrived at
the camp, crying out with a lamentable voice, as it has been reported
to us by Hugh de Nevil, who was in this battle, “Alas! my lord, we
shall all perish; we have no resource left. A numberless multitude
of pagans have got possession of the city, and we have before us
troops as uncountable, who threaten us with death.” The king, in great
anger, commanded him to be silent; and swore he would strike off his
head if he dared to speak such words before any one of the soldiers.
Richard immediately harangued his troop afresh; he exhorted them not
to be terrified by the numbers of the pagans; he told them he would
go into the city to ascertain what was passing; and, taking with him
six determined warriors and the royal standard, he intrepidly enters
Jaffa, opens himself a road with sword and lance, precipitates himself
upon the enemies, who are assembled in the public places, attacks them,
cuts them down, kills them. The warriors who accompany him overturn all
they meet, and slaughter them without mercy. The irruption of the king
was so sudden and so violent, that most who fell were ignorant what
power it was that destroyed them. The enemies fled before the king, who
pursued them as flocks fly before a lion inflamed by hunger.

Richard having, by his incomparable valour, cut down or put to flight
the infidels who were in the city, made some of the soldiers of the
garrison, who had retired into the castle, come and take charge of the
gates and walls of the place.

After this incredible victory, the king returned with his six warriors
to the army. Nevertheless, he was much afflicted at having so few
horses; for there were but six and a mule in all the camp. To animate
his soldiers still further, Richard related to them what the Lord had
done in the city, by means of his arm, and how so small a number had
triumphed over such a host of enemies: “For this reason,” exclaimed
he, “let us invoke the aid of the all-powerful God, in order that
he may to-day crush our enemies. Be sure to resist the first shock,
and sustain courageously the violence of the first blows. Beware of
breaking; for if separated, you will be torn to pieces like sheep,
without strength and without defence. If, on the contrary, you can
sustain the first charge without breaking, you will have nothing to
fear from the courage of your enemies. You will triumph, with the help
of God, over the enemies of Christ. But if I see any one of you show
the least fear, or leave a passage for the enemy, or turn aside, I
swear, by the all-powerful God, I will myself strike off his head.”

When the king had thus exhorted and animated his men to the fight, all
raised their lances, and, by their prayers, invoked the assistance of
God; but whilst many among them, no doubt, were reflecting that they
had nothing but a cruel death before them, the sound of trumpets and
the noise of clarions announced the approach of the infidels, who came
down upon the Christians like a torrent, with their lances directed
towards them, and uttering loud and frightful cries. The Turks expected
that the Christians would give way at the first charge; that they
would disperse over the plain; that their ranks would be broken; and
that they would allow themselves to be cut to pieces almost without
resistance. But the Christian battalion remained firm and motionless,
without yielding a foot to either the terror or the violence of the
assault. The Turks wondered at this unheard of audacity in so small a
number, and reining up their horses, retired backwards some distance,
yet not so far but that they might touch each other with their lances
on both sides. Not an arrow was discharged, not a javelin was thrown;
they only threatened each other with gesture, voice, and countenance.
The Turks remained thus for half an hour, and then returned to their
first position, murmuring and talking to themselves. They drew back
from the Christians nearly half a stadium. Upon seeing this, the king
broke into loud laughter, crying, “Brave soldiers of Christ! did not
I tell you so? Did not I tell you they would not dare to measure
themselves with you, unless we attacked them first? They have shown us
all their courage, and everything that they thought could inspire us
with fear and terror. They thought to frighten us by their numbers, and
that we should not dare to resist their first charge. They expected us
to submit, like women, to their blows, and fly here and there over the
plain. Cursed be he now who would seek to avoid their charge, or who
would fear to measure himself with them. Sustain their assaults with
courage, as you have just done, until, with the help of God, we triumph
over them.”

Richard had scarcely ceased to speak, when the infidels advanced
afresh, uttering their cries, and sounding their trumpets; they,
however, halted at a short distance from the Christians. The latter
remaining motionless as before, and showing, if possible, greater
intrepidity, the infidels returned a second time to their position,
without venturing to strike a blow. They repeated this five or six
times, from the first hour of the day to the ninth. Richard, who began
to be tired of such long inactivity, and whose courage increased
proportionately with the intrepidity of those around him, ordered his
troop, when the infidels came down again, to launch some arrows and
darts at them, and let them feel the points of their lances, so as to
provoke them to fight. He commanded his cross-bowmen to march before
the soldiers, and discharge their arrows, bolts, and javelins at the
enemy, which was done; and when the Turks, according to their custom,
advanced uttering hideous cries, and appeared ready to overwhelm the
Christians, the latter attacked them with their lances, their swords,
and all sorts of weapons, overthrowing them and killing them. The
carnage soon produced cries of agony and disorder in the ranks of the
enemy. Some were run through with lances, others were cast headlong
from their horses; these were wounded in the head, those were pierced
by arrows; and a vast number were slain by darts and javelins. The
intrepid Richard, whose resplendent arms glittered like fire, and
who had till that moment neither given nor received a wound, now all
at once dashed amidst the infidel ranks, with his sword in one hand,
and his lance in the other,[138] striking sparks from the helmets and
armour of all he encountered, right and left. He rushed among the
thickest of the enemy’s battalions, without seeking to avoid their
blows, and without ceasing to deal mortal ones. At one time he was
surrounded by a hundred Saracens, who attacked him alone. He falls
upon them; he strikes off the head of one at a blow; he divides the
shoulders from the body of another; he cuts off the hand of this one,
and the arm of that one; others he overthrows, and renders incapable
of defence. The rest disperse, and seek to avoid his blows. Richard
inspires such terror that no one dares to wait for him, no one dares
encounter him. The soldiers of Richard follow their king as they would
have followed their standard; they penetrate the enemy, slaughtering
without compunction, all who either resist or fall in their way. The
infidels fall with lamentable cries; striking the earth with head and
feet, and their lives gush out with their blood. Although they attacked
the Christians with vigour, and hurled a shower of darts, it pleased
God, however, that not one of their blows should be mortal, and that in
this fight not a single Christian should perish, with the exception of
one soldier, who, separating himself from his comrades, met with the
death he wished to avoid by flight. The soldiers to whom Richard had
confided the guarding of Jaffa, admiring the invincible courage of the
king and his companions, issued in a body from the city, and fell with
vigour upon the Turks. The latter, pursued without any intermission
by Richard and his little army, took to flight, after losing a great
number of their men, and concealed themselves in holes and caves.[139]

Ralph, of Coggershall, after describing this astonishing victory, says
that Richard being attacked by the plague, determined to return into
Europe. He gives an account, in a few words, of the treaty made with
Saladin. He says that that which confirmed the king of England in the
resolution of leaving Asia, was the news he received of his brother
John’s attempts to usurp his authority in his kingdom. The battle of
Jaffa was fought in the dog-days, and it was in the autumn that Richard
set sail for Europe. The account which the author gives of the manner
in which the king was made prisoner in Germany, is sufficiently curious
to be repeated here. Ralph is the only one of the chroniclers we have
analyzed who furnishes minute details on this subject.

King Richard, says he, with some of his people, was annoyed during
six weeks, by a tempestuous sea. When he arrived within three leagues
of Marseilles, and learnt that the Count de St. Gilles, and some
other nobles, through whose states he must pass, had agreed to place
ambushes for him, he resolved to return to England through Germany. He
went back, and landed at the isle of Corfu. He found there two pirate
vessels, which had had the audacity to attack his, and which his pilot
recognised. Richard, on account of the courage and hardihood they had
shown, made a bargain with the pirates, and agreed to go on board
their vessels. He only took with him a small number of his people.
These were Baldwin de Betune; Master Philip, the king’s clerk; Anselm,
his chaplain, who himself related to us all he saw and heard; and some
knights of the Temple. They landed on the coast of Sclavonia, at a city
named Gazara. They immediately sent a messenger to the neighbouring
castle, to request of the lord, who was master of the province, and
nephew to the marquis of Montferrat, liberty to pass through his
states. The king, on his return, had purchased three rubies of a Pisan,
for which he gave nine hundred byzants. He had had one of these rubies
set in a gold ring; and he charged the messenger to offer this ring
to the lord of the castle. The latter inquired the names of those who
demanded the passage. The messenger replied that they were pilgrims
returning from Jerusalem, and he named Baldwin de Betune, adding that
it was a merchant called Hugh, who sent him the ring. The lord of the
castle, after having for a long time examined the present, replied to
the messenger, “His name is not Hugh, but Richard, king of England.
I have sworn,” added he, “that I will make prisoners of all pilgrims
who come into this country, and that I will not receive any present
from them; but on account of the value of this, and of the dignity
of him who sends it, and who has honoured me thus without knowing
me, I return you the ring, and I grant free liberty of passage.” The
messenger went and reported this answer to the king. The pilgrims, very
little satisfied with the message, left the city secretly in the night,
mounted upon horses they had purchased, and made the best of their
way across the country. But the lord sent a spy after them, to follow
their steps and arrest the king. When Richard entered a city in which
dwelt the brother of the lord, the latter called to him a trustworthy
person, named Roger d’Argenten, a Norman by birth, who had been with
him twenty years, and to whom he had given his niece in marriage; and
ordered him to go to all the houses in which pilgrims lodged, and
endeavour to discover, by language, or by some other sign, if the king
were not among them. He promised him half the city if he could arrest
the prince. Roger, after a long search, discovered the king, who for a
considerable time dissembled, and was only induced to reveal himself
by the prayers and tears of Roger. The latter immediately advised
Richard to steal away, and gave him the best horse he could procure.
He then went to his master, and told him that the news of the arrival
of Richard was false, and that it was only Baldwin de Betune and his
companions, who were returning from pilgrimage. But the master flew
into a great rage, and ordered them all to be arrested. The king had
left the city secretly with William de l’Etang, and a servant who
understood the German language. He travelled three days and three
nights without taking any food. At last, pressed by hunger, he turned
from his road, to enter a city called Ginana, in Austria, on the
Danube. To complete his ill fortune, the duke of Austria was then at
Ginana. The king’s servant, on going to the market, displayed several
byzants, and created suspicions by his discourse; he was arrested and
interrogated. He answered that he served a rich merchant, whom he
expected in three days. He was then released; and he went instantly to
the king, relating to him what had happened, and advising him to depart
without delay. But the king, who was fatigued, determined to rest for
a few days. The servant, after going to the market to buy provisions,
had one day the imprudence to carry with him the king’s gloves, stuck
in his girdle. These gloves were very remarkable, and the servant was
again arrested. Being taken before a magistrate of the city, he was
put to the torture, and threatened with having his tongue cut out if
he did not at once reveal the truth. The servant yielding to the agony
of the _question_, made the confession demanded of him. Information
was instantly sent to the duke; the house in which the king lodged was
surrounded, and he was summoned to surrender. The king declared he
would only surrender to the duke himself. The latter arrived, and the
king, making a few steps to meet him, gave up his sword to him.[140]
The duke, highly elated, led away the king, whom he treated honourably.
He afterwards placed guards about him, who never left him, night or
day, but kept watch, with drawn swords in their hands.

After this recital, Ralph makes many sad reflections upon the captivity
of Richard, which he can only explain as a secret judgment of God,
so astonishing and deplorable does it appear to him, that a king who
had escaped so many dangers in Syria, should become the prisoner of a
Christian prince, without having an opportunity to defend himself or
give battle. He follows the king through his captivity, and describes
his deliverance and return to his dominions. He gives an account of
what happened to this prince when he had regained his kingdom, and
pursues his history to the time of his death, which was in 1229. Ralph
has drawn such a portrait of Richard as cannot fail to interest our
readers, on account of the prominent part which that king has played in
the history of the crusades.

“We had reason to hope,” says he, “that Richard, considering the
liberality of his excellent mind and his great skill in the art of
war, would be the model of Norman kings. In the early days of his reign
he was affable to everybody; being well disposed in religious affairs,
and inclined to listen to just demands; he immediately filled up the
vacant bishoprics and abbeys. He promised to render justice to all.
He restored to many, for sums of money, their charters, privileges,
and liberties, or else renewed them. The money he thus obtained
served as means for his voyage to Jerusalem. He quitted his kingdom
almost immediately afterwards, and commenced his expedition with much
devotion, great preparation, and infinite expense. God protected him
throughout, and caused him to escape all the dangers of this war; and,
by his help, the king wrested from the hands of the infidels a great
portion of the Holy Land. God still evidently watched over him during
his return and his captivity, and preserved him from the hands of new
and numerous enemies. But when Richard was restored to his subjects,
he forgot the victorious hand that had preserved him: in the maturity
of age he took no pains to correct the vices which had disfigured his
youth. He displayed so much harshness and obstinacy, that he tarnished
by excessive severity all the virtues that had graced the commencement
of his reign. He always turned a threatening eye upon those who
talked to him of state affairs; he made reproaches or censures with
a terrible air, and showed a furious countenance to those who did
not satisfy his demands for money, or perform the promises they had
made to pay him some. In private he was affable and winning, and even
condescended to play or to joke. He was so greedy of money that he
wished to empty every purse. He pressed the English to such a degree,
in order to discharge the amount of his ransom, that he spared no order
and no condition. Nevertheless, Hubert, archbishop of Canterbury and
justiciary of the kingdom, mitigated, as much as he could, the effects
of the cruel edicts of the king.”

Ralph, in another part of his works, after having praised the new
king of England for having restored to the ecclesiastical benefices
their revenues and their titularies, adds, that Richard took great
delight in the divine service, and particularly in the solemnities
of religion. He says that his chapel was richly ornamented; that he
accompanied, with his sonorous voice, and encouraged by presents, the
singers of the church; but that from the _secrète_ of the mass to the
_post-communion_, he prayed in silence, and with an earnestness which
nothing could disturb. He afterwards names two abbeys which he founded
or repaired, both of the order of Citeaux; one was that of Bon-Port, in
Normandy, in the diocese of Rouën; the other, that of the Pine, in the
diocese of Poictiers.

_No. 21._

The continuator of the history of William of Tyre relates nothing which
is not found in the text, except a little trick which Saladin attempted
to play off upon Richard, at the time of the battle of Jaffa, and
which we think worthy of being presented to our readers. We quote the
chronicle:—

“Saladin asked where the king of England was. They answered him, Sire,
see him yonder on the ground, on foot, with his men.’ How,’ said
Saladin, is the king on foot among his men; is he not ashamed?’ Then
Saladin sent him a horse, and charged the messenger to say, that such
a one as he should not be on foot among his men in such danger. The
sergeant performed the commands of his lord. He came to the king and
presented to him the horse sent by Saladin. The king thanked him for
it, and ordered one of his own sergeants to mount it and show its paces
before him. After the sergeant had spurred the horse into a gallop, and
wished to return towards his master, he found he could not; for the
horse, in spite of all he could do, carried him away to the Saracen
host. Saladin was much ashamed of this.”

This chronicle, when speaking of the deliverance of Richard from his
captivity, does not hesitate to say that it was by the advice of Philip
Augustus, that such an enormous ransom was required, and that the king
of France had a good share of it.

Another chronicler, Gauthier Vinisauf, says that Richard gave eight
noble Turkish prisoners in exchange for William de Protelles (others
name him Porcelot), who had saved his master, when taken by surprise,
by throwing himself in the way of the Saracens, exclaiming, “I am King
Richard.”

_No. 22._

_Extract from an anonymous Chronicle contained in the MSS. of the
Sorbonne, No. 454, of the Thirteenth Century._[141]

Then the king Richard turned back, and directed his course as straight
and as well as he was able towards Germany, where he landed, and, with
a small train, wandered about till he came to Austria (Osterriche),
where he was watched by spies, and known. When he fancied he was
discovered, he took the dress of a servant, and set to work in the
kitchen to turn the capons; but the spy knew him, and went and informed
the duke; and when the duke heard it, he sent so many knights and
people that they were much the stronger, and the king was taken and
sent away to a fortress, and his companions to another; and the king
was sent from castle to castle, so that no one knew where he was, nor
did the soldiers who guarded him know who he was.

* * * * *

_How Richard the King was taken out of Prison by Blondel the
Minstrel_.—We have told you how King Richard was put in prison by the
duke of Austria, and that no one knew where he was except the duke
and those he trusted. It happened that the king had for a long time
entertained a minstrel, born near Artois, whose name was Blondel.
This person declared to himself that he would seek his lord over the
whole earth till he had found him; and set out, and wandered about
from day to day, by land and water, until he had sought for a year and
a half without hearing anything of the king. And it so happened that
he entered into Austria, and chance led him straight to the castle
where the king was confined. And the _Aubergiste_, near the castle was
a widow woman, and he asked her to whom that castle belonged, which
was so fine, so strong, and well placed. The hostess replied that “it
belonged to the duke of Austria.” “Pretty hostess,” said Blondel,
“is there any prisoner confined in it?” “Certes,” said she, “there
is one, who has been confined nearly four years, but we do not know
who he is; they guard him very carefully, and we have no doubt he is
a gentleman—somebody of high quality.” When Blondel heard this he
was infinitely delighted, and his heart whispered him that he had at
length found him he sought; but he was careful not to allow the hostess
to know this. That night he slept soundly, for his mind was at rest;
and when the cock announced the day, he arose and went to the church
to pray God to assist him. He then came to the castle, and addressed
himself to the castellan, telling him he was a minstrel, and played
upon the lute, and that he would willingly remain with him if it were
agreeable to him. The castellan was a young and handsome knight, and
said he would gladly retain him. Then Blondel was delighted, and went
to fetch his lute and his wallet; and he exerted himself so that
he greatly pleased the castellan, and became a favourite with his
household. Here he remained all the winter without being able to make
out who the prisoner was. At length, near the festival of Easter, as he
was one day walking in the garden which surrounded the tower, examining
it in all directions, in the hope of seeing the prisoner, whilst his
thoughts were thus engaged, the king perceived Blondel, and, wishing
to make himself known to him, called to his mind a song which they had
made together, and which no one knew but the king and Blondel. So he
began to sing the first verse of it in a loud and clear voice, for he
sang very well. And when Blondel heard it, he became certain it was
his lord; and his heart had never experienced such joy as that day.
And he went from the orchard to the chamber in which he slept, and
fetched his lute; then he began to play, and in his playing expressed
his pleasure at having found his lord. Thus Blondel remained till
Pentecost, and performed his part so well that nobody suspected him.
Then Blondel went to the castellan, and said to him: “Sir, if agreeable
to you, I would willingly return to my own country, for it is a long
time since I left it.” “Blondel, good brother,” said the castellan,
“you will not do so if you will take my advice; but remain where you
are, and I will advance your fortunes.” “Certes, sir,” said Blondel,
“I cannot remain on any account.” When the castellan found that he
could not detain him, he bade him farewell, and gave him a good new
horse. Having left the castellan, Blondel travelled so quickly that
he soon arrived in England, and informed the barons and the friends
of the king where and how he had found him. When they heard this news
they were much delighted, for the king was the bravest knight that ever
wore spur. They then determined among themselves that they would send
into Austria, to the duke, to procure the deliverance of the king; and
selected two of the most valiant and prudent knights for the purpose.
They travelled so quickly that they soon reached the duke of Austria,
whom they found in his castle. They saluted him on the part of the
barons of England, and said: “Sire, they pray and beseech you to take
ransom for their lord; they will give you as much as you may require.”
The duke replied that he would consider of it. And when he had taken
advice upon the matter, he said: “If you wish to recover your lord, you
must bring two hundred thousand marks sterling; if not, say no more
about it, for it will be time and trouble thrown away.” Having received
the answer, they bade farewell to the duke, and said they would report
it to the barons. They then returned to England, and told the barons
what the duke had said; and the barons replied that he should never be
detained for that. Then they got together the ransom, and sent it to
the duke, and the duke delivered the king to them; but not before he
had given him good security that he would never molest him.

_No. 23._

_Extract from a Journey made into the country of Wales by Baldwin,
Archbishop of Canterbury._

We have spoken, in the seventh book, of the preaching of Archbishop
Baldwin, and of the account written by Gerald the Welshman (Giraldus
Cambrensis), known also under the name of _Barri_. We think we shall
gratify our readers by giving an extract from this relation, which
will furnish some idea of the manners of the inhabitants of Wales
in the twelfth century. The preachers went first to Hereford and
Radnor. In this latter city a bishop of the country and a monk of the
order of Cluni took the cross; at the same time was enrolled Rhys,
son of Gruffydh, prince of the southern part of Wales. Their example
was followed by Eineon, son of Eineon Clyd, prince of Ekenia, and
by several other inhabitants. Giraldus relates what had happened to
the lord of Radnor, in the reign of Henry I. This nobleman entered a
church, where, without respect to the sanctity of the place, he passed
the night with his horses and hounds. Rising early, according to the
custom of hunters, he found that he was struck blind, and was told that
all his hounds were dead. He was conducted back to his castle by the
hand, and when he had for a long time led a sad and an unhappy life,
he determined to go to Jerusalem, in order that the light of the faith
might not be extinguished within him. When arrived in Palestine, he
proceeded to fight with the Saracens, and mounting a fiery horse, he
rushed amidst the enemies’ ranks, and expired with glory.

In the province of Warthrenion, near Radnor, an adventure no less
miraculous was related among the people. Einon, son-in-law of Rhys,
lord of the country, was one day hunting in the forests. One of his
people struck a hind with an arrow. This hind, contrary to custom, had
horns of twelve years, and as large as those of the male. This animal
was considered as a prodigy of nature; but the hunter who had killed it
instantly lost his right eye, was struck with paralysis, and remained
during the rest of his life in a languishing state.

The people of this province held in reverence a stick which had
belonged to St. Cyricus; this stick was crooked at both ends, in the
shape of a cross, and was ornamented with gold and silver. It possessed
the special virtue of curing the evil and humours of the neck. Those
who were attacked by this sort of complaint, touched the stick, after
having paid a denier. “It happened in our time,” says Giraldus, “that
a man suffering from the evil only placed a single obole before the
stick, and the evil was only half cured; upon this the sick man offered
a second obole, and was quite cured. Another man obtained his cure by
promising a denier, but as he did not perform his promise, his evil
returned, and did not entirely disappear until he had offered three
deniers.”

Near Eleiven, in the church of Glascum, was a bell, which was said to
have been that of St. David’s. A woman, to liberate her husband, who
was shut up in a neighbouring castle, carried thither the bell, which
she had secretly taken from St. David’s church; but the castellans
would not deliver the husband, and retained the bell: the castle was
consumed during the night by a miraculous fire, which spared nothing
but the wall against which the bell was suspended. An almost similar
miracle happened at the little village of Luel. The church, which had
been set fire to, was entirely consumed, with all it contained, with
the exception of the box which contained the _host_.

In the province of Elevein two great lakes burst their banks, one of
which was constructed by nature, and the other by the hand of man. The
natural dyke changed its place, and the lake appeared two thousand
paces off, in a valley, where it preserved its fish. Giraldus, when
relating this singular circumstance, adds, “that in Normandy, some
time before the death of Henry II. all the fish in a lake were beheld
fighting during a whole night, and that crowds were drawn together to
witness this strange spectacle. The next morning, not a single fish was
left alive.”

In the country of Haga and Brecknock, in a lake across which the river
Wye passes, before Glastonbury, the water all at once appeared of a
green colour. Old men said this phenomenon took place at the time when
the country was desolated by Noël, son of Meredith. It happened in the
same country, that a little boy, endeavouring to take a nest of doves,
in the church of St. David, his hand remained fastened to a stone,
which was considered as a miracle wrought by the saint, who wished to
preserve the birds of his church. This boy, followed by his parents and
friends, came and threw himself at the foot of the altar, and passed
three nights fasting and praying: the stone was detached from his hand,
and he was delivered. Giraldus says that he saw this boy, then become
an old man, in the course of his journey, and that he related this
prodigy to him. The stone was preserved in the church of St. David, and
the impression of the five fingers of the boy was still visible.

A miracle not less incredible happened near St. Edmondsbury. A poor
woman, with the appearance of devotion, approached the box or _tronc_
of a holy personage, and instead of placing an offering in it, found
means to steal from it every day some portion of the alms of the
faithful. She kissed the tronc in such a manner, that a piece of money
stuck to her tongue, which she conveyed to her mouth without being
observed. One day, whilst kissing the tronc in her customary manner,
her lips became fixed to it; she spit out the money which she had in
her mouth, but could not release her lips from the box, during a whole
day. A great number of Christians, and even Jews, came to behold this
miracle, and were struck with surprise and admiration.

Archbishop Baldwin and his train preached the crusade in the fields
where they found the labourers and shepherds. They gave the cross to
a great number of men, who joined them in a state of perfect nudity;
their wives having concealed their clothes to prevent their enrolling
themselves in the crusade.

Whilst crossing the territory of Brecknock, Giraldus heard that in
the church of Heveden, the concubine of the rector of the church
imprudently sat down on the wooden coffin of St. Orsana, sister of
King Ofred. This coffin was more elevated than the altar. When the
concubine wished to rise up, she could not release her thighs from the
wood, to which they were firmly fixed. The people crowded in, she was
overwhelmed with blows, her clothes were torn off her back, and she was
only relieved by the help of the Divinity, who, at length, was moved to
pity by her tears and prayers.

The psalm-book of Quindreda, sister of St. Kenelmus, likewise operated
great prodigies. On the eve of the festival of St. Kenelmus, at
Winehelcumbe, a crowd of women came from all the neighbouring places
to be present at the festivities given by the monks. The _subcellarius
fornicationem incurrit_ with one of those in the corridors of the
cloister. On the following day, in the procession, he carried the book
of psalms of which we have spoken; but when he wished to lay it down,
the book remained attached to his hands. He then remembered the sin
he had committed the night before; he confessed, performed penance,
and, seconded by the prayers of his brethren, at length succeeded in
breaking the chains the Divinity had imposed upon him. This book of
psalms possessed admirable and frequently tried virtues. When the
body of Kenelmus was being carried to the cemetery, and the people,
on the way, cried out, “He is a martyr!” Quindreda, who was suspected
of having killed her brother, answered, “It is as true that he has
been assassinated as it is true that my eyes, drawn from my head, are
fastened to this psalter.” At these words the two eyes of Quindreda
fell from their sockets upon the open book, and left the stains of
blood upon the leaves.

They likewise exhibited, in the same country, a collar or crown, which
they said had belonged to St. Canaucus. A thief having endeavoured to
steal it, was deprived of sight, and spent his life in darkness.

Giraldus related many other prodigies no less extraordinary. We repeat
some of them in his own words. A soldier named Gilbert Hagernill, was
delivered, _per fenestram ejectionis_, of a foal, in the presence of
a great number of witnesses. He had been ill three years before the
event. A mare produced an animal of extraordinary swiftness, which in
its fore quarters resembled a horse, and in its hind quarters a stag.

Near the rivers Avon and Neth Giraldus was told of an adventure which
had happened to a curate named Elidore. This curate, when twelve years
of age, had fled from the paternal roof. After having remained two days
in a cavern, he perceived two little men, who came towards him, and
said: “Will you come with us? We will take you to a land of delights.”
The youth followed the pigmies along a subterraneous and dark road, and
discovered a beautiful country which was intersected by woods, meadows,
and rivers, but which was not lighted by the sun. Young Elidore was
conducted before the king of this dark country, who, after admiring him
for a long time, gave him to the prince, his son. The subjects of this
prince were of very small stature; they had light curly hair, which
flowed over their shoulders. They had little horses, as big as our
hounds. They ate neither meat nor fish, and lived, for the most part,
upon milk. They never swore or took oaths, and detested falsehood. When
any of them went upon the earth, they could not at all comprehend the
inconstancy, perfidy, and ambition of the men whom the sun enlightened.
They appeared to have no exterior worship, no religious observances,
but confined themselves entirely to the love of truth.

Young Elidore sometimes reascended to the earth, and came to see his
mother, to whom he related his discoveries and adventures. His mother
advised him to bring with him a little of the gold which he described
as being so plentiful in that wonderful country. He wished to obey her,
and stole a golden ball, with which the king’s son was accustomed to
play. As he entered the paternal dwelling, his foot remained fixed to
the sill of the door; the golden ball he had brought, rolled to the
feet of his mother, but was immediately picked up by two pigmies, who
loaded Elidore with jeers and raillery. The latter, quite ashamed of
his fault, wishing to return to the country of the Gnomes, in vain
endeavoured to find the road; and although he continued his search
for more than a year, he never succeeded. He finished by seeking
consolation in study, and became a priest. He had learnt, says
Giraldus, the language of the pigmies, and retained several words of
it: this language very much resembled Greek.

This story, which is very like one of the _Thousand and One Nights_,
may have furnished Swift with the idea of _Gulliver_; it is given at
great length by Giraldus. The curate, Elidore, adds our traveller,
related these marvellous adventures in his old age, and could not
repeat them without shedding tears.

In the country of Haverford and Ross, an innumerable multitude of
people followed Archbishop Baldwin, and took the cross. The orators of
the holy war preached in Latin and in French, and although the people
did not understand a word they spoke, they were moved to tears. An
old woman, who, during three years, had been blind, sent her son to
Archbishop Baldwin, in order to obtain a morsel of the robe of that
holy pontiff. The young man not having been able to penetrate the crowd
which surrounded the archbishop, brought back to his mother a clod of
earth upon which the archbishop had trodden, and left his footmark;
the blind woman pressed this clod to her mouth, then applied it to her
eyes, and recovered her sight.

The preachers of the crusade appeared in the isle of Mona, or Anglesea.
In this isle, Roderick, the youngest of the sons of Awen, took the
cross with a great number of his subjects. The inhabitants of this isle
pointed out, with great respect, a stone which bore the shape of a
man’s thigh, and which, by a miraculous virtue, when it was displaced,
returned of itself, to the spot it had at first occupied. Count Hugh,
of Chester, caused it to be fastened with strong chains to the bottom
of the sea; but on the next day, it was again found in the place from
which it had been taken.

The archbishop finished his tour by visiting the environs of Deva, or
Chester; these countries were not less rich in marvels than the others.
Many of the princes and nobles of this country took the cross.

When crossing the river Conway, Giraldus informs us that at the source
of that river the enchanter Merlin lived; he gives, on this subject
(chap. viii.), a curious notice upon the two Merlins; the one was of
Scotland and the other of Wales; the latter was named Ambrose, and was
born of a demon, in the city of Caermardyn, which owes its name to him.

_No. 24._

_Letter to M. Michaud upon the Assassins, by Am. Jourdain._

In the course of your labours, you must often, Monsieur, have met with
the names of these sectaries, known by the appellation of _Assassins_,
whose religious principle consisted in blind obedience to that Old Man
of the Mountains, who reigned only by murder, and the most horrible
crimes. More than once perhaps you will have attributed to the love
of the marvellous which prevails in ages of ignorance, barbarism,
and credulity, the accounts of Western authors, contemporaries of
the crusades, respecting their perseverance, and their imperturbable
audacity in the pursuit and execution of crime. Nevertheless, we must
confess, to the disgrace of our species, these accounts are even below
the truth, and are confirmed by the unanimous concurrence of Arabian
and Persian writers.

I will not describe these sectaries to you according to William of
Tyre, James of Vitry, and an infinite number of historians with whom
you are well acquainted; I should, if I did so, teach you nothing you
did not know before. But I will devote this letter to presenting you
with a short sketch of the origin, the dogmas, and history of the
Assassins, even of their present state; for some remains of them still
exist in the mountains of Syria. I shall be highly gratified if I can
add any interest to your work, or give you at least a proof of the
pleasure I receive in being serviceable to you.

Before entering on the matter, it will not be useless to recall to
your mind the origin of the two great religious sects which divide the
Mussulmans—the _Sunnites_ and the _Chütes_.

Mahomet dying without naming his successor, there arose two factions
among the people, one of which wished to elevate to the caliphat,
Ali, the son-in-law of this false prophet, and the other the pious
Abou-Bekr. The courageous firmness of Omar cut the difficulties short,
and the party of Abou-Bekr triumphed. Omar governed after him, and
had Othman for his successor. It was not till the death of this weak
prince, that Ali obtained possession of the throne, always regarded by
his partisans as his heritage.

Nevertheless, scarcely had his reign begun, than factions arose on
all sides, whose aim it was to deprive him of the sceptre. Ali had
contributed to this state of things, by disdaining the arts of policy,
and by offending by refusals and even by disgraces, some of the
officers of Mahomet, whose credit was great. One of these factious
persons, Moaviah, an ambitious and powerful rival, aided by the cunning
of Ibn-el-Ass, the famous conqueror of Egypt, sustained by Ayesha,
the widow of Mahomet, who could not pardon the husband of Fatima, for
having suspected her conjugal fidelity, and profiting skilfully by the
faults of Ali, succeeded at length in wresting an authority from him
whose legitimacy could not be contested; at the same time terminated
by murder the course of a life which was about, probably, to end in
humiliation and troubles of all kinds. His two sons experienced a fate
not in any way more fortunate; they perished, victims of the ambition
of the Ommiades, a house of which Moaviah was the first prince.

From that time there existed in the Mussulman empire two parties,
whose opposition had religion for its basis, and which exist even
at the present day:[142] these are the Sunnites and the Chütes. The
first recognised the legitimacy of the succession in the persons of
Abou-Bekr, Omar, and Othman, and placed Ali in the same rank with these
three caliphs. The second, on the contrary, treat the first vicars of
Mahomet as usurpers, and maintain that Ali was his only and veritable
successor.

The numbers of the partisans of Ali became very great, particularly
in Persia; but these partisans were not long before they themselves
were divided into several parties, united in their veneration for Ali
and his posterity, but divided with regard to the prerogatives they
attached to this noble origin, and to the branch which possessed the
rights of the _Imamat_, that is to say, the spiritual and temporal
power. Of all the sects to which this difference of opinions gave
birth, the most powerful was that of the Ismaëlians. It was thus called
because it pretended that the dignity of Imaun had been transmitted
by an uninterrupted line of the descendants of Ali, to a prince named
Ismaël, and that after his death the Imamat had reposed upon persons
unknown to men, up to the moment at which the triumph of the house of
Ali was to be effected; to this sect belonged the Carmates and the
Fatimite caliphs, who wrested Egypt and Syria from the Abasside caliphs
of Bagdad, after having laid the foundation of their power in Africa,
and formed a great empire, to the period when Saladin overturned their
throne to erect one for a descendant of Abbas. But as the Fatimites
acknowledged no other legitimate authority but their own, they employed
a great number of missionaries in spreading their dogmas, and gaining
proselytes in secret.

Such is, Monsieur, the sketch I have deemed it necessary to make,
before proceeding with the founder of the sect which is the object of
my letter.

This founder was named Hassan, son of Sabbah. He was born in the
environs of Thous, a city of Korassan, celebrated for having given
birth to several great men. His father lived in the practices of a
mortified life and of an austere doctrine, but he followed in secret
the sect of the Rafedhites, or the partisans of Ali. To divert,
however, all suspicion from his opinions, he intrusted the education
of his son to a famous doctor, Movaffeceddin, of Nichapour, who was a
virtuous Sunnite. He pretended to an Arabian origin, and gave himself
out as descended from the family of Sabbah-Homairi; but this was a
fable to which no one gave faith, and it was very well known that his
ancestors inhabited some villages in the dependence of Thous.

Hassan speaks thus of his first years of conversion to the sect of
the Ismaëlians:—“From the age of seven years I laboured to acquire
knowledge and talents. I made, as my fathers had done, profession of
that sect of Chütes who recognise the succession of the twelve Imauns.

* * * * *

I had occasion to become acquainted with a _refik_, named Amireh-Zanab,
and a most intimate friendship grew up between us. I believed that the
dogmas and opinions of the Ismaëlians were only those of philosophers,
and I imagined that the sovereign of Egypt (that is to say, the
Fatimite caliph) was a sectary of this philosophy. This persuasion
engaged me in warm discussions with Amireh; whenever he wished to
defend his own doctrines, we had disputes and controversies respecting
the dogmas of them. It was in vain for him to attack the doctrines
of my sect, I did not yield at all to his arguments, and yet he
insensibly made an impression on my mind. Whilst things were in this
state we separated, and I was afflicted with a long illness. I then
said inwardly to myself: “The doctrine of the Ismaëlians is conformable
with truth, and it is only obstinacy that prevents me from adhering to
it. If then, as God forbid! the fatal moment is come for me, I shall
die without having embraced the truth.” I was, however, restored to
health, and soon after made acquaintance with another Ismaëlian, named
Abou-Nedjm-Sanadj. I questioned him upon the true system of Ismaëlian
belief: he explained it to me clearly, and I very soon penetrated
all the depths of it. I afterwards met with an Ismaëlian Dai, named
Moumen, to whom the cheik Abdelmelik-ben-Attach, dai of Irac, had given
permission to exercise the functions of missionary. I informed him of
the wish I had to make my profession of faith to him, and he acceded
to my request. At the time that the cheik Abdelmelek came to Rey, I
accompanied him, and my conduct having pleased him, he confided to me
the ministry of a dai. You must go into Egypt,’ said he, in order to
render your homage to the Imaun Mostanser, and may that be a blessing
to you!’ Mostanser-billah, a descendant of Ali, then occupied the
caliphat of Egypt and the _Imamat_. When, therefore, the cheik left Rey
for Ispahan, I set out for Egypt.”

Hassan was received in Egypt with great distinction, for the fame of
his merit had preceded him thither, and the Imaun Mostanser admitted
him to the most familiar intimacy. This high degree of favour ruined
him. The courtiers, jealous of his credit, laboured to procure his
disgrace, and a difference having arisen between him and the celebrated
Bedr-Al-djemali, generalissimo of the caliph’s troops, Hassan
succumbed. His enemies seized him and threw him, with some Franks,
into a vessel about to sail to Africa. Scarcely was he on the sea when
a horrible tempest arose and placed the ship in great danger; all the
passengers were overcome by terror, expecting nothing but death; Hassan
alone preserved his self-possession and tranquillity. When interrogated
upon this extraordinary conduct, “Our lord,” answered he, “has promised
me that no harm should happen to us;” and, in effect, at the end of a
short time, the sea resumed its calm. The cry of miracle soon arose,
and Hassan made so many disciples of the companions of his voyage.
Another time, the vessel was driven into the port of a Christian city,
the governor of which allowed our pious doctor to reimbark, after
having treated him with hospitality. At length, the vessel being cast
upon the coast of Syria, Hassan abandoned it, and directed his course
towards Persia, by land. He passed through Aleppo and Bagdad, and went
from thence to Konsistan, Ispahan, Yezd, and Carmania, preaching his
doctrine everywhere. From Carmania he returned to Ispahan, where he
sojourned more than four months, at the end of which he set out for
Konsistan. He remained here three months, and then went to Damegan,
where he dwelt for three years, making a great number of proselytes.
Hassan, after various other wanderings, took possession of Altamont,
a strong castle, situated in the Roudbard, a country near Casbin.
Mirkhond, a Persian historian, relates, that he proposed to Mehdi, a
descendant of Ali, who possessed this place, to purchase as much land
of him as could be comprised within the skin of an ox, for the sum
of 3,000 dinars. Mehdi having consented to this bargain, Hassan took
the skin of an ox, of which he made thongs, and tying these together,
passed the line all round the castle. It was by means of this trick
that he made himself master of Altamont, which afterwards became the
central point of the power of the Ismaëlians.

This power, by the ability and activity of Hassan, made a rapid
progress; it was already established throughout the province of
Roudbar, in which his sectaries built a number of strong castles;
nobody was talked of in Persia but Hassan, who threatened to bring the
whole of that great country under his domination. Melik-chah, alarmed
at what he heard, ordered one of his generals to destroy Hassan and his
partisans, and to raze his fortresses; but in vain; and death overtook
Melik-chah before his troops had obtained the least advantage.

The troubles which followed his death, and the division which arose
among the children of this prince, on the subject of the succession to
the throne, left the field free for Hassan to augment the number of
his proselytes. The best-fortified castles of the north-west of Persia
fell into his hands. At length, the sultan Sindjar, having made himself
master of this kingdom, set seriously about the destruction of the
Ismaëlians. Hassan, by artifice, got rid of this dangerous enemy. He
seduced one of the servants of the prince; who, whilst he slept, placed
a sharp stiletto near his head. When the sultan, on awaking, saw this
poniard, he was seized with great fear; but as he was ignorant of the
hand that placed it there, he preserved silence upon the circumstance.
At the end of some days he received the following letter from the head
of the Ismaëlians:—“If good intentions were not entertained towards
the sultan, the poniard which he found near his head would have been
plunged into his heart.” Sindjar was so terrified, that he consented to
make peace with the Ismaëlians upon three conditions: the first was,
that they should add no new constructions to their castles; the second,
that they should purchase neither arms nor machines of war; and the
third, that he should make no new proselytes. He even granted Hassan,
by the title of pension, a portion of the revenues of the country of
Coumes.

From that time Hassan lived peaceably in the castle of Altamont, in
the greatest seclusion, practising the exercises of austere piety,
and employing himself in the composition of dogmatic treatises upon
his doctrine. It is said that he only ascended to the terrace of his
palace, at Altamont, twice during thirty years. He required of his
sectaries the most rigid exactitude in the observances of religion.
Even paternal tenderness could not lead him to deviate from this
severity. Hosséin, his son, having killed the daï of Couhestan, he
punished him with death; another son, for having drunk wine, met with
the same fate. A man having played upon the flute, in the castle of
Altamont, he commanded him to be turned out of the place, and resisted
all the prayers that were made to him to obtain his pardon. Some
authors pretend, that by sacrificing his sons thus, he wished to prove
to the Ismaëlians that he had no intention of fixing the sovereign
power in his own family; I doubt whether such a reason can justify
Hassan in his barbarity. And yet it would not be the first time that
policy has sacrificed the feelings of the heart to state interests.

The ability of this man in the management of affairs equalled his
fanaticism. History has preserved several proofs of this, of which I
shall only quote the following. Hassan had studied under the imaun
Movassek-eddin, in company with Nizam-el-Moulk, one of the greatest
statesmen Islamism ever produced; and community of labours established
the strictest friendship between them. They entered into a mutual
promise that the first of the two that should obtain honours should
share them with the other, and that fortune should not affect their
attachment. Hassan, after having for a long time led a miserable
life, went to Nichapour, where he found Nizam-el-Moulk minister of
the great Melik-chah; this was about the year 1073 of the Christian
era. Nizam-el-Moulk, faithful to his promise, received Hassan with
great kindness, and procured him a post at the court. Endowed with an
expansive mind, rare cunning, and great talents for administration,
this aspirant was not long in insinuating himself into the good graces
of the Sultan, and acquiring his confidence. One day, Melik-chah having
conceived some doubt of the probity of his first minister, asked him in
how short a time he could draw out a clear statement of the receipts
and expenses of the provinces. We should observe, that at that period
the dominions of this prince extended from Antioch, in Syria, to
Kachkar, in Turkistan. Nizam-el-Moulk said it would require two years;
Hassan offered to perform the labour in forty days, provided the Sultan
would place at his disposal all the writers of the court; and his offer
being accepted, he realized his promise. He was preparing to present
the result of his researches to the prince, when Nizam-el-Moulk, who
saw his ruin approach, found means to get the statements into his
hands, and to mutilate them. When Hassan appeared before the Sultan,
the prince put several questions to him relative to the situation
and finances of the empire. Hassan had recourse to his papers, and
found them incomplete; he hesitated, stammered, and could not answer.
Nizam-el-Moulk skilfully took advantage of his tergiversations to
degrade Hassan in the mind of Melik-chah. “Wise and prudent men,” said
he, “required two years to perform the work commanded by your majesty;
an ignorant man, who has pretended to terminate it in forty days, is
unable to give satisfactory answers to the questions put to him.” The
prince, in his anger, was desirous of punishing Hassan; but, as he was
a creature of his court, he allowed the affair to drop, and satisfied
himself with despising him. This anecdote, which does little honour to
the character of Nizam-el-Moulk, and shows no delicacy on the part of
Hassan, towards the man to whom he owed his fortune, proves at least
that the latter possessed great aptitude for business.

Such was the man whom the Ismaëlians, or rather the Assassins of the
Crusaders, recognised as their chief, and to whom they gave the name
of _Séidouna_,—Our Lord. But before we proceed, it is necessary to
enter into some details upon the principles of this sect, upon the
denominations that it bore, and upon its organization.

You have seen, sir, the origin of the denomination of Ismaëlian, given
to the branch of the partisans of Ali to which Hassan belonged. This
name is not, however, the only one under which these heretics were
known by orthodox Mussulmans. They were likewise called _Bathenians_,
_Nezzarians_, _Molaheds_, and _Hachichens_; but the two last epithets
alone applied to the proselytes of Hassan.

The title of Bathenian designated the principles established by the
Ismaëlians. One of the characters of their religion was to explain, in
an allegorical manner, all the precepts of the Mussulman law; and this
allegory was carried so far by some of their doctors, that it tended
to nothing less than the destruction of all public worship; and to the
elevation of a purely philosophical doctrine, and a very licentious
morality, upon the ruins of all revelation and all divine authority.
This is why they were called _Bathenis_, or _Bathenians_; which is to
say, _partisans of interior worship_.

_Molahed_, the plural of the Arabian word _Molhed_, signifies
_impious_; the partisans of Hassan did not receive this epithet till
towards the year 1164 of Christ, and under the reign of one of his
successors, named Hassan, the son of Mohammed. This prince, from
his youth, gave himself up to the study of the dogmatic books of
the sect; and as his father, to whom he succeeded, was unacquainted
with science, he appeared in the eyes of the people a very profound
scholar, and an extraordinary man. This good opinion, with respect to
his person, increased daily, and the Ismaëlians became more blindly
willing to execute his orders. Hassan, rendered bold by this success,
put forth some extravagant opinions, and gave himself out to be the
Imaun of the age. His father was still living; and, in his ignorance,
scrupulously followed the doctrines of his sect. The pretensions of
his son disgusted him, and he put to death two hundred and fifty of
those who favoured them. As long as Mohammed lived, Hassan suppressed
his real intentions; but he resumed them the moment the death of his
father put him in possession of the throne. He permitted everything
that religion prohibited, abolished the exterior practices of the
Mussulman faith, allowed his subjects to drink wine, and dispensed
with all the obligations which the law of Mahomet imposes on its
sectaries; he declared that the knowledge of the allegorical sense of
the precepts dispenses with the observance of the literal sense, and at
length caused himself to be proclaimed son of Nezzar, son of the caliph
Mostanser, and the caliph of God on the surface of the earth.[143]
This heretical conduct procured for the Ismaëlians the denomination of
_Molahed_, impious.

The surname of Nezzarians is derived from that Nezzar, of whom I have
spoken, and was given to those Ismaëlians who adhered to the party
of that prince, the eldest son of Mostanser, caliph of Egypt. The
sectarians of Hassan were of the party of Nezzar.

I now come to the epithet of _Assassins_. The origin of this word had
been the object of numerous researches, which still remained without
any satisfactory result, when an illustrious scholar proved, in an
evident manner, supporting all he advanced upon various Arabian texts,
that it was a corruption of the word _hachichen_; and that it was given
to the Ismaëlians, because they made use of an intoxicating liquor
called _hachich_. This hachich is a preparation of the leaves of hemp,
or some other part of that vegetable, which they employ in different
manners; as a liquor, under the form of confections; or as pastilles,
sweetened with saccharine substances; and even as fumigations. “The
intoxication produced by the _hachich_,” says M. Silvestre de Sacy,
“throws the person who takes it into an ecstasy similar to that which
the Orientals experience in the use of opium; and according to the
testimony of a great many travellers, we may be satisfied that men in
this state of delirium imagine that they enjoy the ordinary objects
of their wishes, and taste of a felicity, the acquisition of which
costs them little, but the use of which, too often repeated, changes
the animal organization, and leads to marasma and death. Some of
them, in this state of transient insanity, losing the consciousness
of their weakness, commit actions of a brutal nature, capable of
disturbing public order. It cannot be forgotten that, during the
sojourn of the French army in Egypt, the general-in-chief was obliged
strictly to prohibit the sale and use of these pernicious substances,
the indulgence in which has become a necessity for the inhabitants
of Egypt, particularly the lower classes of the people. Those who
give themselves up to this custom, are still called _Hachichin_,
_Hachachin_; and these two expressions plainly show why the Ismaëlians
have been called by the Latin historians of the crusades, sometimes
_Assissini_, and sometimes _Assassini_.

With a small acquaintance with the Arabic tongue, and an observation
upon the alterations certain words of that language have experienced
in being transferred to the works of Latin and Greek authors, it is
impossible to raise any objection to the correctness of the etymology
advanced by M. Silvestre de Sacy. We may, however, believe that all
Ismaëlians did not employ the hachich; that their chief alone was
acquainted with this preparation, and that he only administered it to
those whom he destined to exercise the infamous trade of _fedai_, or
_assassins_; for there prevailed among the partisans of this sect a
remarkable hierarchy: the _dai_, _the refik_, and the _fedaï_, formed
three perfectly distinct classes.

The chief of the sect dwelt, as I have said, in the castle of Altamont,
placed amidst mountains. It was the situation of this abode which gave
him the title of _Cheik Aldjebal_,—_Lord of the Mountain_; but as
_cheik_ signifies equally _lord_ and _old man_, our historians of the
crusades took it in the latter sense, and called the prince of the
Assassins the _Old Man of the Mountain_.

The _daïs_ formed the first class of the sect; it was reserved to
them to propagate the doctrine.[144] They exercised the functions of
missionaries, spreading themselves throughout the provinces, preaching
the dogmas of their worship, and receiving the profession of faith
of such as were converted. There were, still further, degrees among
these. They called _dai aldoat_,—_dai of dais_, him who had several
missionaries under his orders, and whose jurisdiction comprised several
provinces. The Ismaëlians had _dais aldoat_ in Syria, Irac, Dilem,
Korassan, &c.

Under the name _refik_, it appears, the body of the sectaries was
comprised.

The _fedaïs_ were the blind ministers of the Old Man of the Mountain;
it was in their hands he placed the knife under which were to fall,
without pity, all who opposed the establishment of his doctrine, or
combated it by dangerous arguments; princes, generals, doctors,—nobody
was safe from their blows; and they showed in the execution of the
crime, a perseverance equalled only by their fanaticism.

The word _fedaï_, in its proper signification, means a _devoted man_,
and the application of it was very just, since this class of the
Ismaëlians had for the orders of their prince a devotedness without
example. It is true this blind obedience was purchased by stratagem;
for I have not the least doubt that we must apply to the fedaïs that
which Marco Paolo relates of the young people brought up by the Old
Man of the Mountains. “This traveller, whose veracity is generally
acknowledged,” says M. de Sacy, “informs us that this prince caused
young people to be brought up, chosen from amongst the most robust of
the inhabitants of the places over which he ruled, to make of them the
executioners of his barbarous decrees. All their education had for
object to convince them that by blindly obeying the orders of their
chief, they would secure themselves, after their death, the enjoyment
of all the pleasures which delight the senses.[145] To attain this
aim, this prince caused delicious gardens to be made round his palace.
There, in pavilions, decorated with all that Asiatic luxury can
imagine that is rich and brilliant, dwelt young beauties, consecrated
solely to the pleasures of those for whom these enchanting places
were destined. It was to this spot the Ismaëlian princes caused to be
transported, from time to time, the young men of whom they meant to
make the blind instruments of their will. After having caused them
to swallow a draught which plunged them into a profound sleep, and
deprived them for some time of the use of all their faculties, they
had them conveyed to these pavilions, worthy of the gardens of Armida.
Upon awaking, everything which struck their ears or their eyes threw
them into a ravishment of delight, which left reason no empire in
their minds. Uncertain if they had already entered upon the enjoyment
of the felicity of which a picture had so often been held up to their
imagination, they abandoned themselves with transport to all the
various seductions by which they were surrounded. After they had passed
some days in these gardens, the same means as had been employed to
bring them there, without their knowledge, were again had recourse to
to remove them from them. Advantage was carefully taken of the first
moments of an awakening, which for them had put an end to the charm of
so much enjoyment, to cause them to describe to their young companions
the wonders of which they had been witnesses, and to convince them
that the happiness of which they had during several fast-flitting days
partaken, was but the prelude or foretaste of what they could secure
an eternal possession of by their submission to the orders of their
prince.”

This draught, endowed with such wonderful powers, was nothing but
the _hachich_, with the virtues of which the chief of the sect was
acquainted, and the use of which was not spread till some centuries
after.

This, sir, is what Oriental historians furnish us with respecting
the origin, dogmas, and political organization of the sect of the
Assassins. As to its history, the extent of its dominions, and its
power, these are points, for the development of which a much greater
space would be requisite than that to which I am obliged to limit
myself. Nevertheless, I will devote a few lines to these articles, for
the gratification of your curiosity.

Mirkhoud has left us, in his work entitled _Bouzat Alsafa_, a history
of the Ismaëlians of Persia. This piece is the more valuable and
authentic, from having been extracted word for word, from a history
written by the celebrated vizier Atha-el-Mulk, who was sent by Holagon,
after the ruin of the Ismaëlians, into the castle of Altamont, and
had an opportunity of consulting their original historical memoirs.
Mirkhoud, or rather Atha-el-Mulk, informs us, then, that the Persian
dynasty of the Ismaëlians furnished eight princes, including
Hassan-ben-Sabbah, and that it subsisted during a space of 166 years,
to the time at which Holagon, at the instigation of several princes who
detested the Ismaëlians on account of their excesses, conquered Persia,
destroyed the castles of the sect, and sent Rokn-eddin-Karchar, the
last sovereign of Altamont, to the other side of the Oxus. This great
event took place in 1256.

But this principal branch, or rather this _stock_ of the Ismaëlians, is
not that of which such frequent mention is made in our crusades; Hassan
Sabbah, after having laid the foundation of his power in Persia, sent
missionaries, of both the first and second order, into all parts of
the Mussulman world; and these missionaries were particularly active
in Syria. A certain very celebrated Seljoukide emir, who governed
Aleppo, seconded their designs wonderfully. Redoun (that was the name
of this prince) formed a friendship with the Ismaëlians, embraced their
principles even, and granted them open protection. From that period,
that is to say 501 of the Hegyra, dates the origin of the great power
they exercised in Syria, which subsisted nearly two hundred years; but
these Ismaëlians were subject to the sovereign of Altamont, and were
directed by _daïs_: it is even remarkable that most of the _fedaïs_,
employed in committing murder in Syria, were Persians by nation, and
had doubtless been educated for that execrable profession in the
delicious gardens of Altamont, and by the virtue of the _chich_.

Europe has taken too little interest in the history of the Ismaëlians,
as obtained from Oriental writers, to be certain of the extent of
country occupied by these sectaries. The geography of Persia, likewise,
is enveloped in too much obscurity to allow us to assign an exact
position to the various castles they inhabited. But what I can affirm
is, that the province of Roudbar, in which was placed the seat of
their empire, is, according to the _Ferhenk Choouri_,—the Persian
dictionary, explained in Turkish, a large district, comprising many
villages, and situated between Casbin and Guilan, in the neighbourhood
of Theheran, the present capital of Persia.

William of Tyre informs us that the Ismaëlians possessed ten fortresses
in Syria, and reckons them at sixty thousand souls. Their principal
establishment was at Massiat, an important, well-fortified place,
situated to the west of Hamah, at the distance of a day’s march.
They obtained possession of it in 505 of the Hegyra, after having
assassinated the emir who governed it; and have kept it even up to
our times. In addition to Massiat, they held seven fortresses in
the parallel of Hamah, from Hemes to the Mediterranean, and in the
neighbourhood of Tripoli. They began to appear in Syria towards the
end of the fifth century of the Hegyra. Their power increased rapidly
under the Seljoukide Redevan, who embraced their doctrine. During the
whole course of his reign, they had a house in Aleppo, in which they
exercised their worship. They were so much dreaded, that they carried
off women and children out of the open streets in mid-day, without any
one daring to oppose their violences. They publicly plundered people of
a sect opposed to their own; gave asylum to the greatest criminals, and
gathered from impunity fresh audacity for the commission of new crimes.
These barbarians carried their insolence so far as to seize, by force
of arms, cities and strong castles; it was thus they entered Apamea,
from which place Tancred drove them.

Whatever may have been the extent of the dominions possessed by the
Ismaëlians, either in Persia or Syria, it cannot be compared with
their power, established by fanaticism, and maintained by the fear
they inspired. Spread throughout the whole of the Mussulman world,
from the extremities of Asia Minor to the depths of Turkistan, they
were everywhere dreaded. In presenting you with a few instances of
their fanaticism and audacity, if I do not afford you a precise idea of
their power, I shall at least make you acquainted with the nature of
it, and with what it may be presumed to have been. Let us begin with
devotedness and fanaticism.

History informs us that Henry, count of Champagne, having made a
journey into Lesser Armenia, paid a visit, on his return, to the king
of the Assassins, and was received with the most distinguished honours.
The prince led him to all parts of his abode, and having conducted him
up a very lofty tower, upon every step of which stood men clothed in
white: “I do not suppose,” said he to his guest, “that you have any
subjects as obedient as mine?” At the same time he made a sign with his
hand, when two of these men precipitated themselves from the top of the
tower, and expired instantly. The head of the Ismaëlians added: “If
you desire it, at the least signal on my part, those whom you see will
precipitate themselves in the same manner.” When taking leave of Henry,
he made him rich presents, and said: “If you have any enemy who aims at
your crown, address yourself to me, and my servants shall soon relieve
you from your anxiety, by poniarding him.”

Melik-chah, alarmed at the progress of Hassan-ben-Sabbah, sent one
of his officers to him to require him to desist from his views, and
to surrender his castles. Hassan ordered one of his servants into
his presence, and commanded him to kill himself, which the servant
instantly did. He then told another to throw himself from the summit
of a high tower, and his orders were equally promptly obeyed. “Report
to your master,” then said he to the ambassador, “what you have seen,
and tell him that I have sixty thousand men at my command, whose
devotedness and obedience are like that which you have seen.”

In 1120, some Bathenians having assassinated Boursiki, prince of
Mossoul, they were cut to pieces on the spot. The mother of one of
these Ismaëlians having learnt the death of the emir and the fate
of the assassins, gave herself up to transports of joy; but her
satisfaction was changed into as lively a grief when she learnt that
her son, by some fortunate chance, had escaped the destiny of his
companions. Thus fanaticism produced the same effect upon this woman
as was produced by national honour and patriotism in the case of the
Spartan mother, whom history has immortalized as sinking under her
grief when she heard that her son had escaped from the massacre of
Thermopylæ. What becomes of the charm and power of virtue, if blind
fanaticism, the disgrace of our nature, can rival her in the noblest
actions she inspires?

The Ismaëlians were the more dangerous and redoubtable, from their
practice of insinuating themselves into the courts of most princes,
and their skill in adopting such disguises as circumstances required.
They assumed the Syrian dress, in order to get rid of that Ahmed Bal,
of whom I have just spoken; they entered the service of Tadjelmouth
Bouri, prince of Damascus, in the quality of grooms of Korassan, and
attacked him with impunity. The murderers of Bouriski took the dress of
dervises, to avert all suspicion. The Ismaëlians deputed to poniard
the marquis of Montferrat, embraced Christianity, wore religious
habits, affected the most austere piety, gained the friendship and
esteem of the clergy, acquired the good-will of their victim, and,
after having killed him, endured the tortures in which they perished
with admirable resignation. The imaun Fakr-eddin, a very celebrated
Persian doctor, having been accused of practising the Ismaëlian
doctrines in secret, in order to clear himself from the calumny,
ascended the pulpit, and pronounced maledictions against the sect.
This news reaching Altamont, Mohammed, who then reigned, charged a
fedaï with the execution of his vengeance. This man repaired to the
dwelling of the imaun, and told him that he was a jurisconsult, that
he was desirous of being instructed by so able a master, and with his
caresses and flattery, played his part so well, that he was admitted
into the family of the doctor; he passed seven months with him without
obtaining an opportunity to execute his purpose. At length, finding
himself one day alone with the imaun, he shut the doors of the house,
drew his poniard, rushed upon the doctor, struck him to the ground, and
seated himself upon his chest. “I will rip you up,” said he, “from the
navel to the breast.” “What for?” replied the imaun. Then the fedaï
reproached him with having cursed the Ismaëlians from the pulpit. The
imaun swore several times never to speak ill of that sect in future;
upon which the fedaï released him, saying: “I have no orders to kill
you, otherwise I should not delay the execution of those orders, or
hesitate in performing them; know, then, that Mohammed salutes you,
and desires that you would do him the honour of visiting him at his
castle. You will become an all-powerful governor, for we shall obey
you blindly.” And he added, “We take no account of the discourse of
common people; their insults have no effect upon us. But you, you ought
never to permit your tongue to utter anything against us, or to censure
our conduct; because your words sink into the people’s hearts as the
strokes of the engraver penetrate the stone.” The imaun said: “It is
impossible for me to go to the castle, but I will, henceforward, never
pronounce a word that may be displeasing to the sovereign of Altamont.”
After this conversation, the fedaï took from his girdle three hundred
and sixty pieces of gold, and said to the imaun: “Here is your salary
for one year, and it has been ordered by the _sublime divan_, that you
should receive every year a similar sum from the reis Modhaffer. I
have in my chamber two Yeman robes; when I am gone your servants must
take them, for our master has sent them to you.” The fedaï instantly
disappeared. The imaun took the pieces of gold and the robes, and
during five years received the appointed salary.

This miraculous devotedness, this confidence in an after-life, the
felicity of which was beyond description, produced the audacity and
perseverance in the execution of the orders of the prince, and the
imperturbable courage which led the Ismaëlians to endure death, without
allowing the most severe tortures to draw a confession from them.
Caliphs and emirs fell beneath their blows, in mosques, in streets,
within the walls of palaces, amidst crowds of people and courts of
nobles. If they were taken with the fatal knife in their hands, they
thanked heaven for bringing them nearer to the goal of their desires,
and hailed death as leading them the first step towards felicity.
Moudoud and Ac Sancar Albourski, princes of Mossoul, were assassinated
as they were coming out of the great mosque of the city, although
surrounded by their officers and domestics. Ahmed Bal, governor of some
castles of the Azerbaidjan, had several times declared himself an enemy
to the Lord of the Mountain; he was struck dead in the midst of the
hall of audience of the sultan Mohammed at Bagdad. The great Saladin
refused to embrace or protect the Ismaëlian doctrine, and announced
his intention of destroying it. Whilst he was carrying on the siege
of Akka, or Ptolemaïs, a fedaï threw himself upon him, and dealt him
a blow of a poniard upon his head. Saladin seized him by the arm, but
the murderer never ceased striking till he was killed. A second and a
third fedaï continued the attack, but without obtaining better success.
Nevertheless, says the historian, Saladin retired to his tent in great
fear.

I have told you, sir, that the irruption of Holagon into Persia, and
the expeditions of Biban into Syria, ruined the Ismaëlian power. But,
whilst destroying their castles, these two great warriors were not
able to completely exterminate the sect. When Tamerlane penetrated
into Mezinderan, he found a great number of Ismaëlians. Mention is
often made of these sectaries in the history of the conquest of Yemen
by the Turks. We know that they are at present scattered through many
parts of Persia, and that the government tolerates them. They even
pretend that they have preserved their imaun to this moment; that he
is descended from Ismaël himself, the son of Djafar Elasdie, and is
named Chah Kalil. He dwells in the city of Khekh, near to Kom. This
imaun is almost venerated as a god, among his proselytes, who attribute
to him the gift of miracles, and often decorate him with the title of
caliph. The Ismaëlians are found as far as the banks of the Ganges and
the Indus, whence they piously come every year to receive the blessings
of their lord in return for the magnificent offerings they bring him.
There likewise still exist many families of them in the mountains of
Libanus, upon whom M. Rousseau, consul-general of France to Aleppo, has
given us some valuable information.

The Ismaëlians of Syria are divided into two classes,—the _Soueidanis_
and the _Khedhrewis_. The latter, who form the most numerous part of
the sect, have for chief the emir Ali Zoghbi, successor of the emir
Mustapha Edris. Their principal place of abode is at Messias, which
M. de Sacy thinks ought to be called Mesiat. This ancient fortress is
situated at twelve leagues west of Hamah, upon an isolated rock. At
three leagues west of Messias, the Ismaëlians possess another fortress,
named Kadmous, of not less consequence than the other.

The second class, which comprises the _Soueidanis_, is much less
numerous than the preceding one, and is concentrated in the village
of Feudara, of the district of Messias. Its poverty has drawn upon it
the contempt of the Khedhrewis; its present chief is named _Cheikh
Soleiman_.

The sect of the Ismaëlians at the present moment only consists of some
wretched families scattered here and there, whom the persecutions
of the Turks are daily annihilating. The following is the sinister
event which has plunged them into these circumstances. We will leave
M. Rousseau to speak:—“The _Reslans_, one of the most distinguished
families of the sect of the Nosaïris, possessed from time immemorial
the fortress and territory of Messias, when the Ismaëlians, having
become sufficiently powerful to encroach upon their domains,
suddenly attacked them, and drove them from the country, in which
they established themselves. This manifest usurpation increased the
inveterate hatred which all the neighbouring peoples entertained for
them. The Nosaïris, after having uselessly attempted, by several means,
to regain their possessions, at length had recourse to stratagem. They
sent some of their people to Messias, who, under borrowed names, and
without creating any suspicion of their designs, entered the service of
the Chich emir, _Mustafa Edris_, who then commanded in the fortress.

“Abou Ali Hammour and Ali Bacha, chief of the conspirators, had not
long to wait for the opportunity they wished for. One day when the
emir remained alone in his dwelling, they assailed him, and slew him
with several dagger-wounds. This unexpected murder was the signal
for great misfortunes for the Ismaëlians. Measures were so well
concerted among their enemies, that at a given signal, a numerous band
of Nosaïris, posted in the avenues of Messias, were to precipitate
themselves upon it on a sudden, and massacre all the inhabitants who
attempted to defend themselves. This project was completely carried
out. The Ismaëlians, attacked sharply, terrified, and, for the most
part, killed in the open streets, offered but weak resistance to their
enemies, to whom they were compelled to swear submission and obedience
for the future. The booty made on this day was valued at more than
a million piastres, reckoning the plunder of the villages and the
country. This event took place in the year 1809.”

These Ismaëlians have a book which contains the dogmas of their present
belief, the practices of their worship, &c. Its author was a certain
Cheikh Ibrahim, who seems to have been one of the visionaries of
the sect; it was made public after the pillage of Messias. It is an
assemblage of absurd reveries and incoherent, ridiculous, insignificant
principles, in which the primitive doctrine of these sectaries is
joined to a crowd of dogmas which are foreign to it, and which time,
communication with other sects, and ignorance, have introduced into
their belief. Nevertheless, the study of them ought not to be entirely
neglected, as they serve to prove to what a degree the human mind may
deceive itself.

To avoid fatiguing your patience, I will pass over that which relates
to mystic theology, and the different incarnations of the Imaun or
Messiah, who was manifested in the persons of Adam, Noah, Abraham,
Moses, Jesus, and Ali, fourth caliph, according to orthodox Mahometans.
I will likewise be silent upon the mysteries of the alphabetical
letters, which are divided into the luminous and the obscure, the
substantial and the corporeal; were at first twenty-two in number,
were augmented by six, at the time of the revelation of the Koran; are
connected with the houses of the moon, with the signs of the zodiac,
with the planets, and the elements; designate sometimes a prophet,
sometimes a holy personage; in short, are susceptible of an infinity
of allegorical applications; but I will give in its entirety the
description of Paradise.

“I have reserved an abode more permanent, and filled with eternal
delights for those who follow my law, and fear the effects of my
justice. This abode is paradise, to which entrance may be obtained by
eight different gates, which lead to the same number of inclosures;
there are in each inclosure or division, 70,000 meadows of saffron, and
70,000 abodes of mother-of-pearl and coral; in each dwelling-place or
abode, there are 70,000 palaces and 70,000 galleries of topaz; in each
gallery there are 70,000 golden saloons; in each saloon, 70,000 silver
tables; upon each table, 70,000 exquisite dishes, &c. &c. Each of these
70,000 palaces contains 70,000 springs, or streams of milk and honey
with as many purple pavilions, occupied by beautiful young women. Still
further, each saloon is surmounted by 70,000 domes of amber, and upon
each dome are set forth 70,000 wonders from the hand of Omnipotence.
The inhabitants of these enchanted places are immortal and are
unacquainted with infirmities, tears, laughter, prayers, or fasting.”

I ought to tell you, with regard to this passage, that in the true
doctrine of the Ismaëlians, paradise is the true religion, and the
epoch of its manifestation, and that this description, or any other
like it, must be considered as an allegory.

To this quotation I cannot refrain from adding two others: one upon the
duties of man, the other upon the metaphysical ideas of this sect.

“Oh! son of Adam, the empire of the universe belongs to me; all that
you possess comes from me; but learn that the aliments which nourish
you, will not preserve you from death, nor the clothes which cover you
from the infirmities of the flesh; you will advance or go back, as you
employ your tongue in falsehood or in truth. Thy being is composed of
three parts: the first is mine, the second is thine; and the third
belongs to us in common. That which is mine, is thy soul; that which
is thine, is thy actions; and that which we share between us, is the
prayers which thou addressest to me. Thou oughtest to implore me in
thy wants; my delight is to listen to the prayers of the good. Oh!
son of Adam, honour me, and thou wilt know me; fear me, and thou wilt
see me; adore me, and thou wilt draw near to me. Oh! son of Adam, if
kings are cast into flames for their tyranny, magistrates for their
treachery, doctors for their jealousies, artisans for their frauds, the
great for their pride, the low for their hypocrisy, the poor for their
falsehoods,—where will they be found who can aspire to enter into
paradise?

* * * * *

There are three sorts of existence: the first, usual and relative,
exposed to the influence of the stars, subject to alterations, and
susceptible of being and not being at the same time; that is matter:
the second, intellectual, which has been preceded by non-existence,
but which becomes permanent from the moment it begins; that is the
soul, upon which the celestial bodies cannot act: the third, necessary,
absolute, and eternal, superior by its nature to the two others, that
is the Supreme Being, by whom everything has been produced, who has
always subsisted, and will subsist for ever.

“The Being whose existence is eternal, the first principle, is
unlimited, One, and without companions.

“Man exists then doubly,—by his soul and by his body; his spiritual
existence survives his bodily existence, which, sooner of later, is
dissolved.

“The soul is a simple substance, homogeneous and immaterial, an
indestructible breath of the Divinity. The body is a compound of
material parts heterogeneous and destructible, which only exists as
long as its parts remain united together. The soul is not essentially
inherent to the body; the latter is not the subject of it; we only know
that it is present in it, as we are aware of the splendour of the sun
upon the surface of any object whatever.

“The soul is immortal.

* * * * *

Souls were created before bodies: they resided, whilst waiting for
them, in the intellectual world, the abode of true essences.

“After their union with the body, they constantly endeavour to preserve
the reminiscence of their productive cause; and if, in their new
state, they do not forget this first essence, they return to their
former dwelling; otherwise they continue wandering and unhappy in the
_material_ world, there to perpetually experience the vicissitudes and
pains of the present life.

“In order not to deteriorate, or lose its rights to proximity with its
author, the soul must be constantly filled with the idea of that first
cause which is disposed to attract it, unceasingly, towards it. It is
its true state of perfection, that in which it maintains itself by
becoming insensible to all terrestrial affections.

“In addition to his immaterial and reasonable soul, man has still
another, which is the natural soul; this is born and dies with the
body; it is a certain inexplicable, but active and actual force, which
is common to him and animals devoid of reason, and which elevates
him above these; it is the immortal breath which the Divinity has
communicated to him, to the exclusion of the other beings of the
universe.”[146]—Receive, monsieur, I beg, &c. &c.

_No. 25._

_Treaty made under the Walls of Constantinople._

This is certainly one of the most extraordinary documents we have
ever seen. A handful of warriors, in a strange and foreign country,
without any certainty of reinforcements, are before the second city
of the world, well peopled, completely fortified, and prepared for
defence; and yet they, before giving an assault, coolly draw up a
treaty, by which the city and its empire are divided amongst them; and
what completes the wonder is, that they succeeded, and, for a while,
obtained what they contemplated.

“We, Henry Dandolo, by the grace of God doge of Venice, Dalmatia,
and Croatia, and the very illustrious lords, Boniface, marquis of
Montferrat; Baldwin, count of Flanders and Hainault; Louis, count of
Blois and Clermont; and Henry, count of St. Pol; each on his own part,
in order to maintain among us union and concord, and to avoid every
subject of offence, with the co-operation of Him who is our peace, who
made everything, and for whose glory we have thought fit to establish
the following order, after having reciprocally engaged ourselves with
the bonds of an oath. In the first place, we all agree (after having
invoked the name of Jesus Christ) to cause the city to be attacked;
and if, by the aid of divine power, we succeed in entering it, we will
remain and serve under the command of those who shall be established
leaders of the army, and follow them as it shall be ordered. All
the wealth that shall be found in the city, shall by every one be
deposited in a common place, which shall be chosen for this purpose,
we reserving always, as well as for our Venetians, three parts of this
wealth, which are to be remitted to us as an indemnity for that which
the Emperor Alexius was bound to pay to us, as well as to you. On your
side, you will retain a fourth part, until we have all obtained equal
satisfaction; and if there should be anything left, we will share it
equally between us and you, so that all may be satisfied. And if the
said wealth should not prove sufficient to discharge that which is due
to us, this wealth, from whatever source it may arise, shall be shared
in the same manner between you and us, as it has been thereupon agreed,
except the provisions and forage, which shall be set aside and divided
equally among your people and ours, in order that all may subsist in
a suitable manner; and all that may be found besides shall be shared
with the other booty, according as it has been agreed thereupon. We
and our Venetians are to enjoy, throughout the empire, in a free
and absolute manner, and without any kind of contradiction, all the
prerogatives and possessions which we have been accustomed to enjoy,
as well in spiritual as in temporal matters; as well as all privileges
and usages, written or not written. There shall also be chosen six
members on our part, and six on yours, who, after having taken an oath,
shall choose in the army and raise to the empire, him whom they shall
believe to be most fit to exercise it, and to command in this land for
the advantage and glory of God, of the holy Romish church, and of the
empire. If they agree among themselves, we will recognise as emperor
him whom they shall have elected with one common voice. But if it
should happen that six shall be on one side and six on the other, it
shall be left to chance, and him upon whom the lot shall fall we will
acknowledge as emperor. If there should be a majority on one side,
we will acknowledge as emperor him in favour of whom this majority
shall be declared. If the council should be divided into more than
two parts, we will acknowledge for emperor him whom the most numerous
party shall have elected. The person who may be chosen emperor, shall
have the quarter of all that shall be conquered from the empire, the
palace of Blachernæ, and the Lion’s Mouth. The three other quarters
shall be shared equally among you and us. As to the clerical members
who shall be of the side on which the emperor shall not have been
chosen, they shall have the privilege of composing the clergy of the
Church of St. Sophia, and to elect a patriarch for the glory of God,
of the holy Roman church, and the empire. But as regards the clerical
members on one side and the other, they shall compose the clergy of
the churches which shall fall to their share. As to the wealth of
the churches, care will be taken to distribute to the ecclesiastics
as much as will be sufficient to provide honourably for them, and to
the churches as much as will be requisite to maintain them properly.
Whatever may remain of this wealth shall be divided and shared as
above directed. We will, in addition, make oath, on both sides, that,
dating from the last day of the present month of March, we will remain
during the space of an entire year in the service of the emperor, in
order to contribute to and strengthen his power, for the glory of God,
the holy Romish church, and the empire; and that all those who shall
have previously sojourned in the empire, shall swear fidelity to the
emperor, according to the good and praiseworthy custom. Thus then, all
those who now dwell in the empire, as has been mentioned, shall swear
they will hold as good and authentic the regulations and treaties which
have been made. It is also proper to observe that, as well on your side
as on ours, there shall be chosen twelve members, at most, as it may
be convenient, who, after having taken the oath, shall be charged with
the duty of distributing the fiefs and honours among individuals, and
of regulating the rights of service to which these same individuals
shall be subjected as regards the emperor and the empire, according
to what these members shall think suitable; that the fief which shall
be assigned to any one shall be possessed freely and without any
obstacle, by his posterity, as well masculine as feminine, and that the
possessor shall have entire power to execute whatever to him may seem
good, saving his obedience to the laws and the duty he shall owe to the
service of the emperor and the empire. There shall be likewise done
for the emperor all the service necessary, independently of that to
which the possessors of fiefs and privileges shall be bound, according
to the order that shall be assigned to them. It is further enacted,
that no inhabitant of a nation which shall be at war with us or our
successors, or the Venetians, shall be admitted into the empire until
that war shall be entirely terminated. Moreover, each party is held to
labour sincerely to obtain from our holy father the pope, that if any
one shall attempt to contravene the present constitution, he shall be
struck by excommunication. On his side, the emperor is bound to swear
that he will hold the acts and gifts which shall be made, irrevocable,
conformably with all which has hereupon been named. That if the present
treaty should require any addition or suppression, it will be within
our power and liberty to make it, assisted by our six counsellors,
conjointly with the said lord marquis, assisted equally by his six
counsellors. On the other side, the above-named lord doge cannot take
the oath to the emperor for any service, for any fief or privilege that
may be granted to him; but he or they whom he shall delegate in that
which concerns him, shall take the oath to do, towards the emperor and
towards the empire, all services required, conformably with all which
has been thereupon mentioned.

_Given, in the year of grace 1204, the 7th day of the month of March._

_No. 26._

In the year 1195, Walter Hemingford, an English chronicler, says that
the Old Man of the Mountain sent to all the princes of Europe a letter,
in which he exculpates the illustrious king Richard from the death
of the marquis of Montferrat. Although this letter may be a little
apocryphal, we publish it, to show our readers how the Old Man of the
Mountain was then spoken of.

“The Old Man of the Mountain to the princes and all the people of the
Christian religion, salutation. As we do not wish ill to him who is
innocent and merits it not, we will not allow that the innocence of
another should be compromised by any act that we have done. We will
never suffer, with the permission of God, that they who have offended
us shall rejoice long in the injuries inflicted on our simplicity. We
signify then to you all, and we take as witness him by whom we hope to
be saved, that it was not by any machinations of the king of England
that the marquis was killed. He was justly killed, by our will and
by our order, by our satellites, because he had offended us, and had
neglected, in spite of our warnings, to make us reparation: for it
is our custom first to warn those who have offended us in anything,
either us or our friends, in order that they may give us satisfaction;
and it is our custom, if they despise our warning, to avenge ourselves
by the hands of our ministers, who obey us with the greater devotion
from being convinced they shall be gloriously recompensed by God, if
they fall whilst executing our orders. We have learnt likewise that it
is said of the same king that he had engaged us, as less incorruptible
than others, to send some one of our people to lay an ambush for the
king of Franco. This is false, and the effect of a vain suspicion. God
is our witness, that he never proposed anything of the kind to us,
and that our honesty would not permit us to allow anything evil to be
attempted against a person who had not merited it. Fare ye well.”

_No. 27._

_Fragment from Nicetas Choniates, concerning the Statues of
Constantinople destroyed by the Crusaders._[147]

The Latins manifested that love of gold which characterizes their
nation, by thinking of a new species of plunder, till that time unknown
to all the former spoilers of this city of cities. After opening the
coffins of the emperors which are in the Heroüm, erected near the
magnificent church of the disciples of Jesus Christ, they pillaged them
all during the night; and, in violation of the laws of equity, they
took away all the ornaments in gold, pearls, and precious transparent
stones, which had so long remained untouched in that sacred place.

Having found, likewise, the body of the emperor Justinian, still
perfect and undecomposed, after the lapse of so many years, this
spectacle struck them with admiration; but they paid no more respect,
on that account, to the ornaments with which the body had been buried.

It may be affirmed that the Occidentals spared neither the living nor
the dead, and beginning with God and his servants, they made all,
indifferently, sensible to the effects of their impiety. A short time
after, they bore away from the great church that veil which was valued
at many thousand silver minæ, and which was ornamented with thick
golden embroidery. But as even all these riches could not satisfy the
boundless cupidity of these barbarians, they cast their eyes upon the
bronze statues, and consigned them to the flames. The Juno of bronze,
which stood in the Square of Constantine, was taken to pieces and sent
to the melting-house, to be transformed into _staters_;[148] so large
was this statue that the head was as much as four pairs of oxen could
draw to the palace.

After the Juno, they took down from its base a group of Paris and
Venus; the shepherd offering the goddess the golden apple of discord.

Whoever beheld without admiration that square obelisk of bronze, the
height of which was almost equal to that of the loftiest columns? Upon
it were sculptured all the birds which, in spring, make the air resound
with their melodious concerts, the labours of husbandmen, musical
instruments, bleating sheep, and bounding lambs. The sea there spread
forth its waves, with vast numbers of fish, part of which were taken
alive, and the rest, bursting through the nets, were plunging back into
their watery home. Naked cupids, sporting by twos and threes, pelting
each other with apples, and indulging in the wildest gambols. At the
top of this square obelisk, which terminated in a pyramidal form, was
placed a female figure, which turned with the least breath of wind;
whence she was called _Anemodoulos_ (that is to say, the slave of the
winds). This work, of admirable beauty, was likewise melted, as was a
colossal statue, which stood in the Place of Taurus, and represented
a man on horseback in heroic costume. This figure, whose base was a
trapezium, was said by some to be Joshua, because his hand was extended
towards the declining sun, and that he seemed to be commanding it
to stay its course. But most persons thought it was intended for
Bellerophon, the hero born and brought up in the Peloponnesus, mounted
upon Pegasus; for the horse had no bridle, and it is thus Pegasus is
represented, striking, at will, the plain with his hoof, and, whether
flying or running, disdaining to submit to his rider. There was an
ancient tradition, which was preserved to our times, and known to
everybody, that under the left forefoot of this horse was concealed
the figure of a man, representing, according to some, a Venetian, and
according to others, some other enemy from the West, bearing a Roman
name, or else it was a Bulgarian. Efforts had often been made to
render this foot so firm and so solid that it might not be possible to
discover what was said to be hidden beneath it. When this horse and
his rider were taken to pieces to be melted, the figure was really
found concealed under the foot of the horse; it was clothed in a
mantle, much in appearance like one of wool; but the Latins, troubling
themselves very little about the predictions concerning it, cast it
also into the fire. Many other statues and admirable works, standing
in the Hippodrome, shared the same fate, and were destroyed by these
barbarians, who, incapable of admiration for the beautiful, converted
all these masterpieces into coin, and annihilated monuments which had
cost so much, for the sake of such an inconsiderable amount of money.
They broke to pieces a Hercules, reclining upon an osier-basket (or
mattress), covered by a lion’s skin, the head of which had, even in
the bronze, so terrible an aspect, that it appeared about to roar,
and spread terror among the idle multitude who stopped to look at it.
The hero was seated, without quiver, bow, or club; his right arm and
leg were stretched out to their full length, whilst his left leg was
bent; placing his left elbow on his knee, he raised his fore-arm, and
with an air of sadness, reposed his head upon the palm of his hand.
He appeared to deplore his destiny, and to be thinking over with
indignation the troubles to which Eurystheus constrained him, from
jealousy, and not from necessity. His chest and shoulders were broad,
his hair curly, his thighs large, his arms muscular, and his height
was such as Lysimachus might, upon conjecture, have assigned to the
true Hercules. This bronze Hercules was his first and last work: it was
so large that the cord which went round his thumb was long enough for
a common man’s girdle, and that with which his leg was measured was
equal in length to the height of a man. They did not, however, fail to
annihilate such a Hercules; these men who had separated courage from
the virtues allied to it, who attributed it to themselves particularly,
and professed to esteem it above everything! They took away the
ass with his pack-saddle, walking and braying, with the ass-driver
following him, which Cæsar Augustus had caused to be placed at Actium
or Nicopolis, in Greece, to perpetuate the remembrance of his having
gone out one night to observe the army of Antony, and having met with
this man, of whom he asked who he was, and whither he was going, the
man answered his name was Nico, and that of his ass Nicander, and that
he was going to Cæsar’s army. Neither could they keep their hands from
the hyena, and the wolf which suckled Remus and Romulus;—they melted
this precious monument of the Roman nation for the sake of some paltry
pieces of copper coin. They destroyed, in the same manner, the man
contending with a lion; an hippopotamus of the Nile, the body of which
ended in a tail covered with scales; the elephant shaking his trunk;
the sphynxes, whose upper parts were those of women of rare beauty,
but who, below, resembled fearful and horrid animals; these sphynxes
were the more admirable from appearing to be able to walk, and at the
same time to fly, and to dispute the palm of swiftness with the largest
birds. A horse without a bridle, pricking up his ears and neighing; a
tamed bull, walking with slow, heavy steps; and Scylla, that ancient
monster, a woman to the waist, with her long neck, her large breasts,
and an air full of cruelty; her inferior parts divided, to form those
animals which attacked the vessels of Ulysses, and devoured several of
his companions.

There was, likewise, in the Hippodrome, a bronze eagle, a wonderful
monument of the magic art of Apollonius of Tyana. Being at Byzantium,
he was implored to put an end to the trouble the inhabitants endured
from the bites of serpents. Having recourse to his criminal arts, in
which he had been instructed by demons and men initiated in their
wicked mysteries, he placed upon a column an eagle which could not
be looked upon without pleasure, and which drew passers-by to stop
and contemplate it, as the songs of the Syrens fascinated those who
listened to them. His wings were extended as if he were about to fly;
but the folds of a serpent, which he held in his talons, impeded his
efforts. The reptile stretched out its head as if to reach the wings of
the bird; but its efforts were in vain; for, pierced by the claws of
the eagle, its ardour relaxed, so that it appeared rather to be about
to sleep or die than to fasten on the wings of the eagle. Thus the
serpent was breathing its last sigh, and its venom was exhaling with
it; whilst the eagle, with a haughty glance, and actually appearing to
utter cries of victory, endeavoured to raise the serpent, and bear it
away into the heavens with him; all which was expressed by the eagle’s
superb look, and the death of the serpent. It might almost be said,
in seeing the serpent thus forced to slacken its flexible folds, and
forego its venomous bites, that it drove away, by its example, other
serpents from Byzantium, and exhorted them to conceal themselves in
their holes. And this was not all that rendered the figure of this
eagle admirable; for it indicated, very correctly to the eye of an
instructed spectator, the twelve hours of the day, by twelve lines
traced upon its wings, when the rays of the sun were not veiled by
clouds.

What shall I say of the Helen, with arms whiter than snow, with small
delicate feet, and a bosom of alabaster? Of Helen, who brought all
Greece together against Troy, who occasioned the ruin of that city,
who from the Trojan shores, passed to those of the Nile, and thence at
length returned to Lacedæmon? Was she able to subdue these inexorable
men, and soften these hearts of iron? She had not the power; she,
whose beauty charmed every spectator, whose robing was magnificent,
who, although of bronze, was full of delicious languor, and who, even
to her tunic, her veil, her diadem, and her elegantly arranged hair,
appeared to respire the very spirit of voluptuousness. Her tunic was
of a fabric more delicate than the tissues of Arachne; her veil was
of the most admirable workmanship; the diadem which encircled her
brow, glittered with the brilliancy of gold and precious stones; and
her floating tresses, agitated by the wind, were gathered together
behind, and descended to her legs. Her lips, slightly separated, like
the cup of a rose, appeared ready to breathe soft and pleasant words,
whilst her inexpressibly sweet smile seemed, in a manner, to meet the
spectator, and fill him with delicious emotion. But language cannot
describe or transmit to posterity the charm of her look, the arch so
exquisitely marked of her eyebrows, or the graces which adorned her
person. But thou, Helen, daughter of Tyndarus, lovely with natural
beauty, work of the Loves, object of the cares of Venus, the most
admirable gift of nature, the prize of victory proposed to Greeks and
Trojans, where is the Nepenthe, that remedy against sadness, which the
wife of Thoas remitted to thee? Where are those philters which none can
resist? Why didst thou not employ them as formerly? But I see how it
was. Thy inevitable destiny was to become the prey of the flames, thou,
whose image alone had power to kindle the flames of love in the hearts
of all who beheld thee. Perhaps I may say, that these descendants of
Æneas condemned thee to the fire, to avenge in thy own person Ilium,
consumed by the fires which thy loves had created. But the fury of
gold which possessed the Latins, and led them to annihilate in every
spot the most beautiful masterpieces of art, is beyond my power of
imagining or describing. But I may venture to say this; they separate
themselves from their wives, and yield them to the embraces of others
for a few oboles; they are incessantly occupied in plunder, or in
games of chance; they put on armour, and fight with each other, with a
senseless and furious ardour, and not with a prudent, regulated valour;
expose all they possess as the prize for victory, without excepting
the young brides who have given them the pleasures of paternity, or
even their own lives, a treasure so dear and valuable to all other
men, and for the preservation of which there is nothing they will not
undertake.—Barbarians even, without letters, know and repeat these
verses upon thee, Helen:—“It is just that both Greeks and Trojans
should undergo long misfortunes for the woman whose beauty equals that
of immortal goddesses.”

There stood upon a column another woman of singular beauty, apparently
in the period of brilliant youth, whose hair descended in tresses
on each side of her face, and was fastened behind; she occupied a
situation but slightly elevated, so that she could be touched by the
hand. In the right hand, although the arm had no support, this statue
bore a horseman, whose horse she held by one foot, and that apparently
as easily as a cup of wine is carried. This horseman, of a manly, noble
bearing, clothed in his cuirass, and with booted legs, seemed actually
to breathe war. The horse’s ears were raised as if he heard the sound
of the trumpet, his head elevated, his look fiery, and the ardour
painted in his eyes denoted his impatience for the course; his feet,
prancing in the air, seemed springing forward with a warlike bound.

After this statue, next to the eastern boundary of the Quadriges,
called of the yellow faction, were placed statues of charioteers,
examples and models of the art of skilfully driving a chariot.
They appeared almost, by the disposition of their hands, to warn
charioteers, not to loosen the reins on approaching the boundary; but
to hold the horses with a tight hand whilst turning, and to make a
sharp and continual use of the whip, so as to keep as close to the
boundary as possible, and leave the unskilful rival charioteer, to make
too wide a sweep, and lose the advantage, even with the best horses.

I will only add one particularity, for I have not undertaken to
describe everything. That which excited remarkable pleasure and
admiration, was a stone basis, upon which was placed an animal in
bronze, which might have been taken for an ox, but that its tail was
too small; like the oxen of Egypt, it had not long dewlaps, and its
hoofs were not cloven. It crushed within its jaws, almost to the
point of stifling it, another animal, whose body was bristling with
scales, so pointed, that although of bronze, they would wound those
who ventured to touch them: this animal was supposed to be a basilisk,
and the creature it had seized, an aspick; but by others one was said
to be an ox from the banks of the Nile, and the other a crocodile.
For my part, I will not undertake to reconcile these opinions; I will
content myself with saying that they were engaged in a most astonishing
contest, and inflicted serious wounds upon each other; for sometimes
the more strong, sometimes the mere weak, they were at the same time
conquerors and conquered. The animal, which many supposed to be a
basilisk, was all swollen from head to feet, and the poison circulating
throughout its body, and flowing through all its members, gave it a
colour greener than that of frogs,—a colour of death. It was upon its
knees, with languishing eyes, and appeared to have lost all strength
and vigour. It might have been believed even, that it had long been
dead, had not its hind legs, at least, still stood firmly under it.
The other animal which it held in its jaws, still waved its tail a
little, and opened its long mouth under the pressure of the teeth which
held and stifled it. It appeared to use its utmost efforts to escape
from the teeth and jaws which held it so tenaciously, but could not
succeed; for its body was fast between the jaws, and transpierced by
the teeth of its enemy from the shoulders and the fore-feet to the part
next to the tail. It was thus they died, the one by the other; the
combat was mutual, the vengeance reciprocal, the victory equal, and the
death common.[149] For my part, I believe I may remark on this subject,
that it is not only in effigy, or among fierce and strong animals, that
beings wicked and fatal to man thus inflict a mutual death upon each
other; but that we often see nations, which bring war to the Romans,
destroy each other; which is an effect of the power of Christ, who
disperses nations that are friends to war, who holds blood in horror,
and shows the just marching against the aspick and the basilisk, and
trampling under foot the lion and the dragon.

_No. 28._

_Letter to M. Michaud upon the Crusade of Children of 1212, by M. Am.
Jourdain._

The expedition beyond the seas, undertaken about 1212, and composed
entirely of children, if not one of the most striking events of
the crusades, certainly appears to me to be not one of the least
extraordinary. That institutions dictated by the spirit of religion,
and destined either to propagate our religion, or to elevate its
splendour, have not always found in their object a preservative against
the corruption attached to human beings, is a truth established by
numberless examples; but that fanaticism or the genius of evil,
should be sufficiently powerful to extinguish in childhood the
natural sentiment of its weakness, and draw it away from its natural
supports, to inspire it with this train of ideas, this perseverance
in resolutions, this accordance required by every enterprise formed
by a numerous concourse of individuals, is what we can scarcely
believe, although the memory of the fact is preserved by several
historians. Whoever is acquainted with the taste of the middle ages
for the marvellous, and has only read the incomplete account of the
modern historians of the crusades, is at first tempted to range this
expedition among fabulous adventures; and to procure it any credit, it
is necessary to produce evidences worthy of our confidence.

In my first incredulity, I employed myself in collecting these
evidences; I offer them to you in this letter, monsieur, in order to
furnish, if possible, one trait more for the varied picture of the
errors of the human mind.

We must distinguish various circumstances in this strange event; its
date, the means which prepared it, the places that witnessed it, and
its issue. Although criticism has not sufficient data to determine each
of these points with precision, nevertheless the chronicles of the
middle ages furnish us with documents sufficiently extensive to satisfy
a prudent curiosity.

With regard to the date, contemporary historians all place this crusade
under the year 1212,[150] or 1213 at the latest.[151] It is only by
an error very easy to be reconciled, that others advance it twelve
years,[152] or put it back ten.[153]

As to the places that witnessed the birth and growth of such an
enterprise, it appears that the Crusaders belonged to two nations,
and formed two troops, which followed different routes: one, leaving
Germany, traversed Saxony and the Alps, and arrived on the shores
of the Adriatic Sea;[154] France furnished the others, who, after
collecting in the environs of Paris, crossed Burgundy, and arrived at
Marseilles, the place of embarkation.[155]

Prestiges, fanaticism, the announcement of prodigies, were all employed
to rouse the youth of these countries, and put them in motion. It was
reported, according to Vincent de Beauvais that the Old Man of the
Mountain, who was accustomed to educate _arsacides_ from the tenderest
age, detained two clerks captives, and would only grant them their
liberty upon condition that they brought him back some young boys
from France. The opinion then was, that these children, deceived by
false visions, and seduced by the promises of these two clerks, marked
themselves with the sign of the cross.

The promoter of the crusade in Germany was a certain Nicolas, a German
by nation.[156] “This multitude of children,” says Bezarre, “were
persuaded, by the help of a false revelation, that the drought would be
so great that year, that the abysses of the sea would be dry; and they
went to Genoa, with the intention of passing over to Jerusalem, across
the arid bed of the Mediterranean.”

The composition of these troops corresponded with the means employed
to seduce them. There were children of all ages and conditions, and of
both sexes; some of them were not more than twelve years old; they set
out from villages and towns, without leaders, without guides, without
provisions, and with empty purses. It was in vain their parents or
friends thought to dissuade them by showing them the folly of such
an expedition: the captivity to which they condemned them redoubled
their ardour; breaking through doors, or opening themselves passages
through walls, they succeeded in escaping, and went to rejoin their
respective bands. If they were questioned upon the object of their
voyage, they answered that they were going to visit the holy places.
Although a pilgrimage commenced under such auspices, and stained with
all sorts of excesses, must have been an object of scandal rather than
of edification, there were people senseless enough to see in it an act
of the all-powerful God; men and women quitted their houses and their
lands to join these vagabond troops, believing they pursued the way of
salvation: others furnished them with money and food, thinking they
aided souls inspired by God, and guided by sentiments of divine piety.
The pope, when informed of their proceedings, exclaimed, with a groan:
“These children reproach us with being buried in sleep, whilst they
are flying to the defence of the Holy Land.”[157] If some few of the
clergy, endowed with a little foresight, openly blamed this expedition,
their censures were at once attributed to motives of avarice and
incredulity; and, in order to avoid public contempt,[158] wisdom and
prudence were condemned to silence.

The event, however, proved that all which man undertakes without
employing the balance of reason and earnest reflection, does not come
to a fortunate issue; “for soon,” says Bishop Sicard, “this multitude
entirely disappeared:—_quasi evanuit universa_.”

But we must carefully distinguish between the fate of the German and
that of the French Crusaders, although a part of the latter directed
their course towards Italy.

It required nothing beyond wearing the cross to be admitted into the
crusade; if the watchful care of princes and prelates in expeditions
directed by ecclesiastical and secular power could not succeed in
excluding from them men of bad morals, what sort of people must have
been mixed with a host got together without the least care, and under
the eye of no superior intelligence, the greater part of whom fled,
like the prodigal son, from the paternal dwelling, in order to give
themselves up, without restraint, to their vicious inclinations? The
account of Godfrey the Monk, therefore, does not at all astonish us
when he says that thieves insinuated themselves among the German
pilgrims, and disappeared after having plundered them of their baggage
and the gifts the faithful had bestowed upon them. One of these thieves
being recognised at Cologne, ended his days on the rack. To this first
misfortune a crowd of evils quickly succeeded, the necessary result of
the want of foresight of the Crusaders. The fatigue of a long journey,
heat, disease, and want, swept away a great number of them. Of those
who arrived in Italy, some, dispersing themselves over the country,
and plundered by the inhabitants, were reduced to servitude; others,
to the amount of seven thousand, presented themselves before Genoa. At
first the senate gave them permission to remain six or seven days in
the city; but reflecting afterwards upon the folly of the expedition,
fearing that such a multitude would produce famine, and, above all,
apprehending that Frederick, who was then in a state of rebellion
against the Holy See and at war with Genoa, might take advantage of the
circumstance to excite a tumult, they ordered the Crusaders to depart
from the city. Nevertheless, it was a received opinion in the time of
Bizarre, that the republic granted the rights of citizenship to several
of the young Germans of this formidable body, who were distinguished
by birth; they acquired afterwards so much consideration, that they
were admitted into the order of patricians; “and it is from them,”
adds the same historian, “that several of the great families of the
present day derive their origin; among whom may be remarked that of the
Vivaldi.” The others, finding their error, turned back towards their
own country again; and these Crusaders, who had been seen advancing in
numerous troops, and singing animating songs, returned singly, robbed
of everything, walking barefooted, undergoing the pangs of hunger, and
subjected to the scoffs and derision of the population of the cities
and countries they passed through: it is not to be wondered at, that in
such circumstances many young girls lost the chastity which had been
their ornament in their homes.

The Crusaders from France experienced a nearly similar fate: a very
slender portion of them returned: the rest either perished in the waves
or became an object of speculation for two Marseilles merchants.
Hugh Ferrers and William Porcus, so were they named, carried on a
trade with the Saracens, of which the asle of young boys formed a
considerable branch. No opportunity for an advantageous speculation
could be more favourable; they offered to transport to the East all
the pilgrims who arrived at Marseilles, without any kind of charge for
the voyage; assigning piety as the motive for this act of generosity.
This proposition was joyfully accepted; and seven vessels, laden with
these pilgrims, set sail for the coast of Syria. At the end of two
days, when the ships were off the isle of St. Peter, near the rock of
the Recluse, a violent tempest arose, and the sea swallowed up two of
them, with all the passengers on board. The other five arrived at Bugia
and Alexandria, and the young Crusaders were all sold to the Saracens
or to slave-merchants.[159] The caliph bought forty of them, all of
whom were in orders, and caused them to be brought up with great care
in a place set apart for the purpose: twelve of the others perished as
martyrs, being unwilling to renounce their religion. None of the clerks
purchased by the caliph, according to the account of one of them who
afterwards obtained his liberty, embraced the worship of Mahomet: all
faithful to the religion of their fathers, practised it constantly in
tears and slavery. Hugh and William having at a later period formed the
project of assassinating Frederick, were discovered, and perished in an
ignominious manner, with three Saracens, their accomplices, receiving,
in this miserable end, the wages due to their treachery.

Pope Gregory IX. afterwards caused a church to be built in the island
of St. Peter, in honour of those who were shipwrecked, and instituted
twelve canonships to provide for the duties of it. In the time of
Alberic the spot was still pointed out where the bodies cast up by the
waves were buried.

As for the Crusaders who survived so many calamities, and remained in
Europe, with the exception of some old and infirm persons, the pope
would not release them from their vows; they were obliged either to
perform the pilgrimage at a maturer age, or to redeem it by alms.

Such was the issue of this crusade, so justly designated by two
chronicles, _expeditio nugatoria, expeditio derisoria_.[160]

Two facts strike us as extraordinary in this account: the condition
attached by the Old Man of the Mountain to the liberty of the clerk of
whom Vincent of Beauvais speaks, and the trade in children carried on
by the merchants of Marseilles.

Upon the first point we can offer nothing but the opinion received
among the nations of the West. It was generally believed in the
thirteenth century, that the Old Man of the Mountain kept up a
connection with Christian Europe; several princes were even accused
of having had recourse to the daggers of his assassins to get rid of
their enemies. Frederick received ambassadors from him in Sicily.[161]
Roger Bacon complains bitterly of the fascinations secretly employed by
the Saracens to seduce the young servants of Christ;[162] the name of
_Assassins_ had already passed into the vulgar tongue in the thirteenth
century, and was the object of general terror. In spite, then, of the
opinion of some critics, a more extended examination than comes within
the scope of this letter is necessary, before we reject the account of
Vincent of Bauvais.

As to the trade in young boys, that is not at all a new fact; many
traces of it are to be found much anterior to this period. The
Greeks and Venetians practised it openly enough. Pope Zacharias
repurchased, in 748, many Christian slaves, who had been taken away
from Rome by Venetian merchants; the people of Verdun, as witnessed
by Lilprand, were about to sell to the Arabs of Spain some young boys
they had mutilated, and who were to serve as guards to the women of
seraglios.[163] Besides, the fate of the young Crusaders who embarked
at Marseilles, and found degradation and slavery instead of the sacred
soil promised to their blind zeal, is attested by two contemporary
writers, worthy of perfect confidence: these are the illustrious
Thomas de Champré[164] and Roger Bacon.[165] I do not then perceive
any reasonable doubt that can be raised against this fact, but I find
in it a fresh example of human cupidity, which sacrifices, in order
to satisfy its cravings, that which nature and religion hold most
sacred.—Receive, Monsieur, &c. &c.

_No. 29._

_A Letter from Pope Innocent III._[166]

Now that motives more pressing than ever call Christians to the
assistance of the Holy Land, and that we have reason to expect, from
the present aid, more fortunate results than have been hitherto
obtained, we again raise our voice, and make you to hear our cries
in the name of Him who, when dying, cried with a loud voice from the
cross, and who carried obedience towards God, his father, so far as
to die upon the cross, crying in order to drag us from the torments
of an eternal death; who cried also by himself, and said: “If any
one desires to come with me, let him entirely renounce himself, let
him take up his cross, and follow me.” This is as if he said in a
more manifest manner, Let him who desires to follow me to the crown,
follow me also to the fight, which is now proposed to all to serve as
a trial. There is no doubt that the Omnipotent God was able, if it
had been his will, to prevent this land falling into the hands of the
enemies; he is able even now, if it were his will, to wrest it from
them easily; since nothing can resist his will. But as iniquity was
carried almost to its height, and as the zeal of charity was chilled
in most, to arouse his faithful servants from the sleep of death, and
to recall to them the desire of life, he offers this conflict to them,
in order to prove their faith, like gold in the crucible; offering to
them in this, an opportunity, nay more, an assured pledge of obtaining
salvation. For this, they who shall have fought valiantly for him,
shall obtain of him a crown of happiness; but they who, in such a
pressing necessity, shall have drawn back from the service they owed
to the glory of the Lord, will deserve to hear, at the great day of
judgment, their just condemnation pronounced. What happy effects will
this holy enterprise produce! How many, turning towards penitence,
will range themselves under the standard of the cross, and will merit,
by their efforts, a crown of glory, who perhaps would have perished
in their iniquity, after having passed a life entirely consecrated
to carnal voluptuousness and to the frivolities of this world. This
is an old artifice of Jesus Christ, which he has deigned to repeat
in our days for the salvation of his faithful servants. In fact,
if any earthly monarch were driven by his enemies from his states,
would not, when he should have recovered them, such of his vassals
be condemned as infidels, and destined to all the punishments which
the greatly guilty deserve, as had not exposed for his sake, not only
their lives but their persons? In the same manner the King of Kings,
our Lord Jesus Christ, who has given you a body and a soul, and all
the other blessings you enjoy, will condemn you as guilty of black
ingratitude, and of the crime of infidelity, if you fail to march to
his succour at a time when he is in a manner driven from the kingdom
he has acquired by his blood. Let whoever then shall refuse, in this
pressing necessity, to hasten to the help of his Redeemer, know that
he will exhibit a criminal hardness, and that he will be grievously
guilty. If any one should be unjustly deprived of a portion, however
small, of the heritage of his fathers, soon, according to the usages
of the world, he would labour with all his strength to have this
injustice repaired, and to repel this violence; and would spare neither
his person nor his property, until he had succeeded in regaining all
that he had lost. What excuse, then, can he bring who shall have
declined some trifling labours to punish offences committed against his
Redeemer, and avenge the outrages he has received; and who, by sparing
his person and his goods, prevents the recovery of the places which
witnessed the passion and the resurrection of our Lord, in which God,
our king, deigned, some centuries ago, to operate, upon the earth,
the salvation of men? How, also, according to the divine precept, can
he love his neighbour as himself (as it is written), who knows that
his brethren, Christians in belief and in name, are groaning in the
prisons of the perfidious Saracens, and are suffering all the horrors
of the hardest captivity, and shall refuse to labour in an effective
manner for their deliverance, transgressing by this, this precept of
the natural law, which God has made known in his Gospel: “Do unto other
men that which you wish they should do unto you.” Are you ignorant,
that among these people, many thousands of Christians groan in slavery
and in chains, and are constantly subject to the most cruel tortures?
All the provinces now in the power of the Saracens were inhabited by
Christian nations till after the time of St. Gregory; but towards
that period, there arose a child of perdition, a false prophet, named
Mahomet, who, by the attractions of the joys of this world, and by the
bait of carnal voluptuousness, found means to seduce a great number
and turn them aside from the path of truth. Although his perfidy may
have triumphed up to the present day, we place, nevertheless, our
confidence in the Lord, who has hitherto so well inspired us, and we
hope that we shall soon see the end of this beast, of which, according
to the Apocalypse of St. John, “the number is included in six hundred
and sixty-six.” He will soon end by the operation of the Holy Ghost,
who will revive, with the fire of charity, the chilled hearts of the
faithful; and of these years, nearly six hundred have already passed
away. In addition to the other grave and considerable insults that the
perfidious Saracens have inflicted on our Redeemer on account of our
sins, lately, upon Mount Tabor, where he revealed to his disciples the
image of future glory, these same perfidious Saracens have erected a
fortress for the confusion of the Christian name. They hope, by means
of this fortress, easily to obtain possession of the city of Acre,
which is near to it, and afterwards invade, without the least obstacle,
the rest of the Holy Land, almost entirely destitute of strength
and means of defence. For this, then, my dear children in Christ,
change into sentiments of peace and love your brotherly dissensions
and discords, and let every one of you hasten to range himself under
the standard of the cross, without hesitating to expose his person
and his wealth for Him who offered up his soul for you, and shed his
blood for you. March with security, upon this holy expedition, certain
that if you are truly repentant, this short and transient labour
will be for you a certain means of obtaining life eternal. For us,
depositaries of the Divine mercy, and to whom has been transmitted
the authority of the blessed St. Peter and St. Paul, according to the
power which, although we were unworthy of it, God has given us to
bind and unbind, we grant, to all who shall undertake in person and
at their own expense this meritorious labour, the absolute pardon of
their sins, after they shall heartily have repented of them, and shall
have confessed them by word of mouth, and we give them the certain
hope, by this means, of obtaining more easily life everlasting. As
for those who, without assisting in person in the expedition, shall
contribute to it by sending, according to their rank and their means,
men fit for the purpose, in the same manner to those who shall go in
person, although at the expense of others, we grant to all pardon for
their sins. We grant the same pardon, in proportion with the extent of
their sacrifices and the fervour of their devotion, to those who shall
deprive themselves of a part of their worldly goods to provide for
the expenses of the enterprise. We equally take under the protection
of Saint Peter and of ourselves, the persons and the property of the
faithful, from the moment they shall receive the sign of the cross;
we place them under that of the archbishops and bishops, and all the
prelates of the Church; and we declare that no infringement shall be
made upon the possessions of the absent, until certain intelligence be
obtained of their death or of their return. If any one shall make an
attempt to do so, he shall be cited before the prelates of the Church,
and shall be subjected to ecclesiastical censure. If it should happen,
moreover, that any one of those who are disposed to set out for the
Holy Land, should be obliged, by oath to pay any usurious amounts,
we enjoin the prelates of the Church, to employ the same means to
force their creditors to liberate them from their oath, and to desist
from their usurious demands; and if it should happen that any one of
these creditors should undertake to force his debtor to the payment
of the usuries, let him incur the same censure, and be forced to make
restitution. As for the Jews, we order that they be forced, by the
secular power, to make remission of all usury to them who are going to
the Holy Land; and, until they have made that remission, they shall be
deprived, by means of excommunication, of all kinds of commerce with
Christians. But in order that the succour furnished to the Holy Land
should become less burdensome and more easy, from being levied upon
a greater number, we beg all the faithful in general, and every one
individually, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,
the only true, the only Eternal God, demanding in the name of Jesus
Christ and for Jesus Christ, of all archbishops, bishops, abbots, and
priors; of all chapters of churches, whether cathedral or conventual;
of all clerks, as well as of all cities, towns, and villages, to
furnish each, according to their faculties, the required number of
warriors, with everything necessary for their support for three years.
If, for this purpose, each individual contribution should appear
insufficient, several should be joined together; for we entertain no
doubt that enough persons will present themselves, if the means be
not wanting. We particularly request kings, princes, counts, barons,
and other wealthy men who do not assist in the expedition in person,
to contribute their part according to their means. As to maritime
cities, we require of them the assistance of vessels. And for fear
that we should appear to impose heavy and serious burdens upon others,
which we are unwilling to put our hand to ourselves, we declare in our
conscience, and before God, that all which we require of others we
will eagerly do ourselves. We have thought it our duty to state, with
respect to the clerks who shall form part of the expedition, that, all
contestation ceasing, they may, to that effect, pledge the revenues of
their benefices for three years. But as the succour which the Holy Land
requires may meet with many obstacles and delays, if, before conferring
the cross upon every one, it were necessary to stop to examine if he
were capable of performing personally all the obligations imposed by
such a vow, we consent that, regulars excepted, all who desire it
shall take the cross; and that, if reasons of a pressing necessity,
or of an evident utility require it, their vow may be, in virtue of
an apostolic mandatory letter, changed, redeemed, or deferred; and,
for the same reason, we revoke the pardons and indulgences granted by
us, up to this day, to those who offered to march against the Moors in
Spain, or against the heretics of Provence; particularly as they were
granted to them for a time which is now entirely passed away, and for
reasons which, in a great degree, have ceased to exist. For, with the
grace of God, these affairs have so progressed, that they no longer
require active measures; and if, by chance, they should again require
them, we should take care quickly to turn our attention towards them.
We grant, however, that the Provençals and Spaniards should still enjoy
these indulgences. Moreover, as corsairs and pirates greatly impede
the measures taken for the succour of the Holy Land, by seizing and
plundering those who are going thither, we excommunicate them, as well
as their principal accomplices and abettors; forbidding under pain of
anathema, any person, wittingly, to treat with them for any sale or any
purchase, and enjoining the governors of cities and places which they
inhabit, to reclaim them from this trade of iniquity, and put an end to
their brigandages. Besides, as not being willing to trouble the wicked
is nothing else but encouraging them; and as this is not foreign to the
manœuvres of a secret society which neglects to oppose these manifest
crimes, we cannot refrain from employing ecclesiastical severity
against the persons and the property of those who shall be in this
condition; because they would become no less dangerous to the Christian
name than the Saracens themselves. Moreover, we renew the sentence of
excommunication, passed in the Council of the Lateran, against those
who supply the Saracens with armour and weapons, or serve as pilots
to the corsairs of those nations; we declare also that they shall be
deprived of all they possess, and shall remain in slavery, if they
chance to fall into it. We order that this sentence be published in all
maritime cities, every Sunday and festival. But as we have much more to
look for from divine clemency than from human power, we must, in such a
conjuncture, contend less with corporeal arms than with spiritual arms;
therefore we order and decree, that once in every month there shall be
made, separately, a general procession of men, and in the same manner
separately, as much as possible, one of women, during which, with minds
filled with the spirit of humility, all will ask, with fervent prayers,
that it may please the divine mercy to remove from us opprobrium and
confusion, by delivering from the hands of pagans, that land upon which
all the mysteries of our redemption were effected, and by restoring it,
for the glory of the Omnipotent, to the Christian people. Care must
always be taken, in these processions, to make a fervent exhortation
to the people, and to repeat to them the name of the sign of our
salvation. To prayer must be added fasting and charity, in order that
they may be like wings to prayer, and carry it more easily and more
promptly to the pious ears of the Eternal, who will listen to us with
kindness in his own good time. Every day, likewise, at the solemn mass,
after the kiss of peace, at the moment in which the salutary host,
offered for the sins of the world, is upon the point of being consumed,
all present, men as well as women, shall prostrate themselves humbly
to the earth, and the clerks shall sing with a loud voice, the psalm,
_Deus venerunt gentes in hæreditatem tuam_; to which they shall add:
_Exurgat Deus et dissipentur inimici ejus; et fugiant à facie ejus qui
oderunt eum_. Then the officiating priest shall sing with a loud voice
upon the altar, the prayer, _Deus qui admirabile, &c._ In churches in
which the general procession shall assemble, care shall be taken to
place a _tronc_, which shall be fastened with three keys, one of which
shall remain in the hands of an honest priest, another in those of
a devout layman, and the third in those of a monk, that they may be
faithfully taken care of. It is in these troncs that clerks, laymen,
men, and women shall deposit the alms destined for the aid of the
Holy Land, according to the dispositions of those to whom these cares
shall have been confided. As to the departure and the voyage, which
should be made with modesty and order, we will, as yet, state nothing
regarding them until the army of the Lord shall have taken the cross.
But as all the circumstances are now prepared for, we will make all
the arrangements which may appear necessary, aided by the counsels of
wise and prudent men. To this effect, we have chosen our beloved son
De Sales, the late abbots of Novo Castro, C. dean of Spire, and the
guardian of the Augustines, all men of probity and known fidelity,
who, after having associated themselves with other worthy and honest
men, shall regulate and dispose, in our name, all that they shall deem
necessary for the success of this enterprise, causing their orders to
be faithfully and carefully executed by men fit for the business and
specially appointed to it. This, therefore, is why we pray you all,
we supplicate and conjure you, in the name of the Lord, command you
by this present apostolic letters, and enjoin you by the authority of
the Holy Ghost, to take care to prove, on every occasion, to these
legates of Jesus Christ, by your eagerness to furnish them with all
things necessary, that they will find, by you and in you, the means of
attaining the so much desired end.

_No. 30._

_Poetry of the Troubadours for the Crusades._

See how great is the folly of him who remains here! Does not Jesus
command his apostles to follow him, and that he who should follow him
should leave his friends and his wealthy abode? The time is come to
obey this order: he who dies beyond the seas is more happy than if he
lived; and he who lives on this side of them is more unfortunate than
if he died. What is a cowardly, shameful life worth? Ah! he who dies
generously triumphs over death itself, and lives again in felicity.

* * * * *

Let him cease to boast of being brave, the knight who does not
arm to succour both the cross and the sacred tomb! Yes, with rich
equipments, with valour, with courtesy, and with all that is fair and
irreproachable, we cannot obtain glory and happiness in paradise. What
more could counts and kings require, if, by honourable deeds, they
could redeem themselves from hell and from fire eternal, in which so
many wretches would live tormented for ever?

Whoever is forced by old age or sickness to remain at home, let him
give his money to those who are willing to take arms: it is a good
deed to send another in your place; particularly when you are not kept
back by cowardice. Ah! at the day of judgment, what will they answer
who have remained at home? God will appear, and will say: “False men!
men full of cowardice! for your sakes I died, for your sakes I was
scourged.” Then, the just man himself, will he be without fear?—(Pons
de Capducil: _Er nos sia_.)

I would that the king of France and the king of England were at peace!
Certes, God would greatly honour him of the two who should consent
the first, and would never forget his merits. Yes, that king would
be crowned in heaven. Ah! why are the king of Apulia and the emperor
not friends and brothers, until the holy tomb be recovered? Are they
ignorant that the pardon they grant here, they themselves shall obtain
at the day of the great judgment?—(Pons de Capducil: _En honor_.)

What mourning! what despair! what tears! when God shall say, “Go,
wretches, go into hell, where you shall be tormented for ever in
tortures, in agonies. This is your punishment for not having believed
that I underwent a cruel passion: I died for you, and you have
forgotten it.” But they who, in the crusade, shall meet with death,
will be able to say, “And we, Lord, we died for thee.”—(Folquet de
Romans: _Quan lo dous_.)

To-day will the brave, the gallant, and the courageous show themselves;
it will be their audacity and their bravery that will distinguish them:
this is the moment to display skill and valour. God calls, he himself
calls, he chooses true knights, he who knows them, and he rejects the
base who are wanting in courage and faith: it is the valiant alone whom
his mercy will distinguish.—(Pierre d’Auvergne: _Lo Senhor_.)

The time is come, the day is arrived, in which it will be put to the
test who are the men worthy of serving the Eternal: he calls, but he
only calls upon the gallant and the brave. They shall be ever his,
who, knowing faithfully how to suffer, devote themselves, and fight,
shall be full of frankness, generosity, courtesy, and loyalty. Let the
cowardly and the avaricious remain where they are; God only wants the
good: he is willing that they should save themselves by their own high
deeds. What a worthy and glorious salvation!

If ever William Malespine appeared brave among us, he has now furnished
God himself with the proof of it; he took the cross the first, he took
the cross voluntarily, to deliver the holy sepulchre and the sacred
heritage. What shame! how wrong it is of the kings and the emperor that
they do not deign to conclude treaties and truces with one another, in
order to be able to succour the kingdom of the law, the holy light,
and the tomb and the cross which the Turks have so long retained.
The repetition alone of this disaster overwhelms us with profound
sadness—(Aimerie de Peguilhan: _Evas pana_.)

* * * * *

It will soon be known what gallant men entertain the noble ambition of
meriting the glory of this world and the glory of God. Yes, they may
obtain the one and the other, they who devote themselves to the pious
pilgrimage to deliver the holy tomb. Great God, what grief! the Turks
have assailed and profaned it! Let us be sensible, even to the depths
of our hearts, of this mortal disgrace; let us clothe ourselves with
the sign of the Crusaders, let us pass over the seas; we have a safe
and courageous guide, the sovereign pontiff Innocent himself.

Yes, every one is invited thither, every one is required; let every
one march forward and cross himself in the name of that God who was
crucified between two thieves, when he was so unjustly condemned by
the Jews. If we still set a value on loyalty and bravery, we must
fear the opprobrium of leaving Christ thus disinherited; but we love,
we wish for that which is evil, and despise that which would be good
and useful. But what! life, in our countries, is for us, nothing but
a continual danger; and death, in the Holy Land, is for us eternal
happiness.

Ah! ought we to hesitate to suffer death in the service of God, of
that God who deigned to suffer for our deliverance! Yes, they shall be
saved with St. Andrew, they who shall march towards Mount Tabor: let no
one feel dread in the passage of this fleshly death. That which is to
be feared is spiritual death, which delivers us up to the place where
there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, as St. Matthew shows and
assures us.

Signor, saciez-tu or ne s’en ira
En cele terre u diex fu mors et vis,
Et ki la crois d’outre mer ne prendra
A paines mais ira en Paradis:
Ki a en soi pitié et ramembrance
Au haut Seignor, doit guerre sa vengeance,
Et delivrer sa terre et son pays....
Or s’en iront cil vaillant bacheler
Ki aiment Dieu et l’oneur de cest mont
Ki sagement voilent à Dieu aler,
Et li morveux, li cendreus demourront:
Avugle sunt, de ce ne dont je mie,
Ki au secours ne font Dieu en sa vie
Et por si poc pert la gloire del mont.
Diex se laissa per nos en crois pener;
Et nous dira au jour où tuit venront:
“Vos, ki ma crois m’aidâtes à porfer,
Vos en irez là où li angele sont;
Là me verrez, et ma Mère Marie;
Et vos, par qui je n’oi onques aie,
Descendez tuit en enfer le parfont.”[167]

—Thibault, king of Navarre. He took the cross in 1236; he set out from
Marseilles in the month of August, 1238 or 1239.

_No. 31._

_Upon the Funeral Ceremonies of the Prussians._

When a man, particularly a noble, died, he was placed upon a seat in
the midst of his family and his friends, who said to him, “Hilloa!
hadst thou not a comfortable house and a handsome wife, why didst
thou die? Hadst thou not large flocks, horses of speed, and dogs of
sure scent? What has driven thee from the world?” They then spread
out the riches of the dead man, asking him the same questions; and
as he made them no answer, those who were present charged him with
messages to their deceased friends and relations.[168] They made the
defunct funeral presents: for the men, this was a sword, to defend
them against their enemies; for the women, it was a needle and thread,
with which they might mend their clothes during their long voyage. The
poor were buried, the rich were consumed upon a funeral pile.[169] The
relations accompanied the convoy on horseback, sword in hand, uttering
cries to drive away evil spirits. When arrived at the place of the
ceremony, the cortège went three times round the pile, repeating these
words: “Hilloa! why hast thou quitted life?” With the dead they burnt
household goods, horses, dogs, falcons, everything which had ministered
to the wants or pleasures of the deceased upon earth; sometimes even
the wives, and the slaves who were attached to him, were cast into
the lighted pile. Panegyrists, whom they called _talissons_[170] and
_ligastons_, pronounced the eulogy of the dead; and whilst the flames
ascended towards the heavens, they fancied they beheld him in the
clouds, mounted upon a white horse, clad in brilliant armour, holding
three stars in the right hand, a falcon on the left hand, and advancing
towards another world in all the splendour of power and glory.

_No. 32._

_Letter from the Count of Artois upon the taking of Damietta._

To his very excellent and very dear mother, Blanche, by the grace of
God, illustrious queen of France, Robert, Count d’Artois, her devoted
son, salutation, filial piety, and a will always obedient to hers.
As you take much interest in our prosperity, in that of ours and of
the Christian people, when you shall learn them with certainty, your
excellence will no doubt rejoice to know that the lord, our brother
and king, the queen and her sister, and ourselves also, are enjoying,
thanks to God, perfect health. We ardently desire that you may be in
the enjoyment of the like. Our dear brother, the Count of Anjou, is
still afflicted with his quartan fever, but it is less violent than it
was. The lord, our brother, with the barons and pilgrims who passed
the winter in the isle of Cyprus, assembled on board their vessels,
at the port of Limisso, on the evening of the Ascension, in order to
proceed against the enemies of the Christian faith. After much labour,
and much opposition on the part of the winds, they arrived, under the
guardianship of God, on the Friday after Trinity, and towards mid-day,
upon the coast, where, having cast anchor, they assembled in the king’s
vessel, to deliberate upon what was to be done. As they saw before them
Damietta, and the port guarded by a great multitude of barbarians, on
horseback as well as on foot, and the mouth of the river covered with
a great number of armed vessels, it was resolved that on the following
day, all should land with our lord the king.

On the morrow, the Christian army, leaving the large vessels, descended
into the galleys and small boats. Full of confidence in the mercy of
God, and in the succour of the holy cross, which the legate carried
near the king, they directed their course towards the shore and
against the enemy, who launched a great number of arrows against them.
Nevertheless, as the small boats, on account of the too great depth of
the sea, could not gain the shore, the Christian army, leaving their
boats to the care of Providence, threw themselves into the sea, and
gained land, although loaded with their armour. Although a multitude of
Turks defended the shores against the Christians, nevertheless, thanks
to our Lord Jesus Christ, the latter made themselves masters of it
without loss, and killed a great number of the horse and foot soldiers,
and some, as we hear, of great name. The Saracens retreated into the
city, which was well fortified by the river, its walls and strong
towers; but the All-Powerful Lord gave it up, on the next day, which
was the octave of the Trinity, to the Christian army; the Saracens
flying away, after having abandoned it. This was done by the favour of
God alone. Know that these same Saracens have left the city full of
provisions of all kinds, and of machines of war. The Christian army,
after having fully supplied itself, left half for the provisioning of
the city. The king, our lord, has sojourned there with his army, and,
during his sojourn, has caused to be brought from the vessels all he
requires. We have thought it best to remain here till the retreat of
the waters of the Nile, which will, as we hear, inundate the country,
and would cause great losses in the Christian army.

The countess of Anjou was confined in the isle of Cyprus, of a fine
well-made boy, whom she has left at nurse there. Given at the camp of
_Jamas_, in the year of our Lord 1249, in the month of June, and on the
eve of St. John the Baptist.

_No. 33._

_Letter of St. Louis upon his Captivity and Deliverance._

Louis, by the grace of God, king of the French, to his beloved and
faithful prelates, barons, warriors, citizens, burgesses, and all the
other inhabitants of his kingdom, to whom these present letters may
come, salutation!

For the honour and glory of the name of God, desiring, with all our
soul, to pursue the enterprise of the crusade, we have thought proper
to inform you all that after the taking of Damietta, which our Lord
Jesus Christ, by his ineffable mercy, as by miracle, gave up to the
power of the Christians, as you have no doubt learnt, by the advice
of our council, we set out from that city the 20th day of the month
of November last. Our armies of land and sea were united; we marched
against that of the Saracens, which was gathered together, and encamped
in a place vulgarly called Mansourah. During our march, we sustained
the attack of the enemy, who constantly experienced considerable loss.
Upon one day among others, many men belonging to the Egyptian army, who
came to attack ours, were killed. We learnt by the way that the Sultan
of Cairo had just terminated his unhappy life; that before dying he
sent for his son, who was in the eastern provinces, and made all the
officers of his army take the oath of fidelity to this prince; and that
he had left the command of all his troops to one of his emirs, named
Fakr-eddin. Upon our arrival at the spot I have named, we found the
news true. It was on the Thursday before the festival of Christmas that
we arrived there; but we were not able to approach the Saracens, on
account of a stream of water, which was between the two armies, called
the river Thanis, a stream which separates itself at this spot from the
great river of the Nile. We placed our camp between these two rivers,
and it extended from the greater to the lesser one. We had there some
engagements with the Saracens, who had many of their men killed by
the swords of ours, but a great number of them were drowned in the
waters. As the Thanis was not fordable, on account of the deepness of
its waters, and the height of its banks, we began to throw a causeway
across it, in order to open a passage for the Christian army; we worked
at it for many days with great labour, dangers, and expense. The
Saracens opposed all the efforts of our toil: they built machines to
act against our machines; and they broke to pieces with stones, and
burned with their Greek fire the towers and timbers which we placed
upon the causeway. We had almost lost all hope of passing over by means
of the causeway, when a Saracen fugitive informed us of a ford by which
the Christian army might cross the river. Having called together our
barons, and the principal leaders of the army, on the Monday before
Ash-Wednesday, it was resolved that on the following day, that is to
say, the day of Carême penant (three days before Lent), we should
repair early in the morning to the place pointed out for crossing the
river, leaving a small part of the army to guard the camp. The next
day, having ranged our troops in order of battle, we proceeded to the
ford, and crossed the river, not without incurring great dangers; for
the ford was deeper and more difficult than it had been represented to
us. Our horses were obliged to swim, and it was not easy to get out of
the river, on account of the elevation of the banks, which were besides
very muddy. When we had crossed the river, we arrived at the place
where the Saracens had raised machines in face of our causeway. Our
vanguard, attacking the enemy, killed a vast many people, and spared
neither sex nor age. Among the number, the Saracens lost a general
and several emirs. Our troops having afterwards dispersed themselves
over the country, some of our soldiers passed through the camp of the
enemy, and arrived at the village named Mansourah, killing all they met
with; but the Saracens perceiving the imprudence of our men, resumed
their courage, and fell upon them, surrounding them on all sides, and
overwhelming them with numbers. A great carnage ensued of our barons
and warriors, ecclesiastics as well as others, whom we have with reason
deplored, and whose loss we still continue to deplore. There we lost
also our brave and illustrious brother, the count d’Artois, worthy
of eternal remembrance. It is with bitterness of heart we recall the
memory of that painful loss, although we ought to rejoice at it; for
we believe and hope that having received the crown of martyrdom, he is
gone into the heavenly country, and that he there enjoys the reward
accorded to holy martyrs. On that day the Saracens pouring down upon
us from all parts, and piercing our troops with showers of arrows, we
withstood their fierce assaults till the ninth hour, although we were
entirely without the assistance of our cross-bowmen.[171] In the end,
after having a great number of our warriors and horses killed and
wounded, with the help of our Lord, we preserved our position, and
having rallied, we went that same day and pitched our tents close to
the machines of the Saracens. We remained there with a small number
of our people, and made a bridge of boats, that those who were on the
other side of the river might come to us. The next day many of them
crossed, and encamped near us. Then the machines of the Saracens being
destroyed, our soldiers were able to go and come freely, and safely,
from one army to the other, over the bridge of boats. On the following
Friday, the children of perdition having collected their forces from
all parts, with the intention of exterminating the Christian army, came
to attack our lines, with much audacity, and with infinite numbers.
The shock was so terrible on both sides, that it is said never was
such a one beheld on these shores. With the help of God, we stood our
ground on all sides; we repulsed the enemy, and made a great number
of them fall beneath our blows. At the end of a few days, the son
of the late Sultan, returning from the eastern provinces, arrived
at Mansourah. The Egyptians received him as their master, and with
transports of joy. His arrival redoubled their courage; but from that
moment, we know not by what judgment of God, everything on our side
went contrary to our desires. A contagious disease broke out in our
army, and carried off men and animals, in such a manner that there were
very few who had not to regret companions or attend upon the sick. The
Christian army was, in a very short time, much diminished. There was
such a scarcity of food, that many died of want and hunger; for the
boats of Damietta could not bring to the army the provisions embarked
upon the river, because the vessels of pirates and of the enemy cut
off the passage. They even captured many of our boats, and afterwards
took, successively, two caravans, which were bringing us provisions,
and killed a great number of sailors and others who formed part of it.
The extreme scarcity of food and forage spread desolation and terror
throughout the army, and with the losses we had experienced, forced us
to quit our position, and to return to Damietta, if it were the will
of God; but _as the ways of man are not within himself, but in Him who
directs his steps, and disposes all things according to his will_,
whilst we were on the road, that is to say, the 5th of the month of
April, the Saracens, having got together all their forces, attacked the
Christian army, and by the permission of God, and on account of our
sins, we fell into the power of the enemy. We and our dear brothers,
the counts of Anjou and Poictiers, and the others who were returning
with us by land, were all taken prisoners. The greater part of those
who were returning by the river were, in the same manner, either taken
prisoners or killed. The vessels on which they were aboard were mostly
burnt with the sick who were in them. Some days after our captivity,
the sultan proposed a truce to us; he demanded earnestly, but without
threats, that Damietta and all that it contained should be given up to
him without delay; and that he should be indemnified for all the losses
and all the expenses he had incurred up to that day, from the moment
the Christians entered Damietta. After many conferences, we concluded a
truce with him for ten years, on the following conditions:—

The sultan will deliver from prison, and allow to go whither we will,
ourselves and all that have been made prisoners since our arrival in
Egypt, and all other Christians, of whatever country they may be,
who have been made prisoners since the sultan Kamel, grandfather of
the present sultan, made a truce with the emperor; the Christians
retaining in peace all the lands they possessed in the kingdom of
Jerusalem, at the time of our arrival. On our part, we consent to give
up Damietta, with eight hundred thousand Saracen byzants, for the
liberty of the prisoners, and for the losses and expenses of which we
have just spoken (we have already paid four hundred), and to deliver
all Saracen prisoners which the Christians have made since we have been
in Egypt, as well as those who had been made captives in the kingdom of
Jerusalem, since the truce concluded between the aforesaid sultan and
the aforesaid emperor. All our household goods, and those of all others
who were at Damietta, shall be, after our departure, placed under
the care of the sultan, and be transported into the country of the
Christians when an opportunity shall offer itself. All the Christian
sick, and those who shall remain at Damietta to sell what they possess
there, shall be in equal safety, and shall depart either by land or
by sea, when they shall please, without obstacle or molestation.—The
sultan was bound to give safe conduct to the countries of the
Christians to those who should wish to depart by land.

This truce, concluded with the sultan, had just been sworn to on
both sides, and the sultan had already set forward on his march to
go with his army to Damietta, and fulfil the conditions which had
been stipulated, when, by a judgment of God, some Saracen warriors,
doubtless with the connivance of the greater part of the army, rushed
upon the sultan at the moment he was rising from table, and wounded him
severely. The sultan, in spite of this, came out of his tent, hoping
to be able to escape by flight; but he was killed by sword-cuts, in
presence of almost all the emirs, and of a multitude of other Saracens.
After this many Saracens, in the first moments of their fury, came
with arms in their hands to our tent, as if they wished, and as many
among us feared, to slay both us and the other Christians; but divine
clemency having calmed their fury, they pressed us to execute the
conditions of the truce. Their words and their requests were, however,
mingled with terrible threats: at last, by the will of God, who is the
father of mercies, the consoler of the afflicted, and who listens to
the lamentations of his servants, we confirmed by a new oath the truce
which we had made with the sultan. We received from all, and from each
one in particular of them, a similar oath, sworn according to their
law, to observe the conditions of the truce. The time was fixed for the
giving up of the prisoners and the city of Damietta. It had not been
without difficulty that we agreed with the sultan for the giving up of
that place; it was not without difficulty again that we agreed afresh
with the emirs. As we could have no hopes of holding it, after what we
were told by those who came back from Damietta, and who knew the true
state of things; by the advice of the barons of France, and of many
others, we judged it would be better for Christendom, that we and the
other prisoners should be delivered by means of a truce, than to retain
that city with the remains of the Christians that were in it, ourselves
and the others remaining prisoners, exposed to all the dangers of such
a captivity. For this reason, on the day fixed, the emirs received the
city of Damietta, after which they set us at liberty, ourselves, our
brothers, the counts of Flanders, Brittany, and Soissons, and many
other barons and warriors of the kingdoms of France, Jerusalem, and
Cyprus. We had then a firm hope that they would render up and deliver
all the other Christians, and that, according to the tenor of the
treaty, they would keep their oaths.

This done, we quitted Egypt; after having left the persons charged
to receive the prisoners from the hands of the Saracens, and to take
care of the things we could not bring away, for want of vessels to
convey them in. Upon our arrival here, we sent vessels and commissaries
into Egypt, to bring away the prisoners; for the deliverance of these
prisoners is the object of all our solicitude; and the other things
which we had left behind, such as the machines, arms, tents, a certain
number of horses, and several other articles; but the emirs detained
our commissaries a long time at Cairo, to whom they have, at length,
only delivered four hundred prisoners out of twelve thousand that there
are in Egypt. Some of these were only liberated upon the payment of
money. As to the other things, the emirs would restore nothing; but
what is most odious, after the truce concluded and sworn to, according
to the account of our commissaries and captives worthy of credit, who
have returned from that country, they have chosen from among their
prisoners some young men, whom they have forced, the sword held
over their heads, to abjure the Catholic faith, and embrace the law
of Mahomet, which many have had the weakness to do; but others, like
courageous athletes, rooted in their faith, and constantly persisting
in their firm resolution, have not been moved by either the threats or
the blows of the enemies, and have received the crown of martyrdom.
Their blood, we do not doubt, cries to the Lord for the Christian
people; they will be, in the heavenly court, our advocates before the
Sovereign Judge; and they will be more useful to us in that country
than if we had been able to keep them upon earth. The Mussulmans
likewise slaughtered many Christians who were left sick in Damietta.
Although we should have observed the conditions of the treaty that we
have made with them, and were always ready to observe them, we had no
certainty of seeing the Christian prisoners delivered, or of having
that restored which belonged to us. When the truce was concluded, and
our deliverance had taken place, we had a firm confidence that the
country beyond the sea, occupied by the Christians, would remain in a
state of peace until the expiration of the truce; and we had both the
desire and the intention to return to France. We were already making
preparations for our passage; but when we clearly perceived, by that
which we have just related, that the emirs were openly violating the
truce, and, in contempt of their oath, did not fear to make a sport of
us and Christendom, we assembled the barons of France, the prelates,
the knights of the Temple, of the Hospital, of the Teutonic order, and
the barons of the kingdom of Jerusalem, and we consulted with them
upon what was best to be done. The greater number were of opinion that
if we were to return at this moment, and abandon this country, which
we were upon the point of losing, it would be exposing it entirely to
the attacks of the Saracens, particularly in the state of misery and
weakness to which it was reduced, and we might consider the deliverance
of the Christian prisoners now in the power of the enemy, as lost and
hopeless. If, on the contrary, we remained, we had hopes that time
would bring about something favourable, such as the deliverance of
the captives, the preservation of the castles, and the fortresses
of the kingdom of Jerusalem, and other advantages for Christendom;
particularly as discord had sprung up between the sultan of Aleppo
and those who governed at Cairo. The sultan has already, after
gathering together his armies, got possession of Damascus, and some
castles belonging to the sovereign of Cairo. It is said he is about
to come into Egypt, to avenge the death of the sultan, whom the emirs
killed, and to make himself master, if he can, of all the country. In
consequence of these considerations and compassionating the miseries
and degradation of the Holy Land, we who came to succour it, pitying
the captivity and the sorrows of our prisoners, although many dissuade
us from remaining longer beyond the seas, we have preferred putting off
our passage, and continuing still some time in Syria, to abandoning
entirely the cause of Christ, and leaving our prisoners exposed to so
many and such great dangers. But we have determined upon sending back
into France our dear brothers, the counts of Poictiers and Anjou, for
the consolation of our dear lady and mother, and of the whole kingdom.
As all those who bear the name of Christian ought to be filled with
zeal for the enterprise we have formed, and you in particular, who are
descended from the blood of those whom the Lord chose as a privileged
people, for the conquest of the Holy Land, which you ought to look upon
as your property, we invite you all to serve Him who served you upon
the cross, shedding his blood for your salvation; for this criminal
nation, in addition to the blasphemies they vomited in the presence of
Christian people against the Creator, beat the cross with rods, spat
upon it, and trampled it under-foot, in hatred of the Christian faith.

Courage, then, soldiers of Christ! arm, and be ready to avenge these
outrages and these affronts. Take example of your ancestors, who
distinguished themselves among all nations by their devotion, by the
sincerity of their faith, and filled the universe with the fame of
their noble actions. We have gone before you in the service of God.
Come and join us. Although you arrive late, you will receive from the
Lord the recompense which the father of the family, in the Gospel,
accorded without distinction to the labourers who came to labour in the
vineyard at the end of the day, as to the labourers who came at the
beginning of it. They who shall come, or who shall send succour whilst
we are here, will obtain, in addition to the indulgences promised to
Crusaders, the favour of God and of man. Make, then, your preparations,
and let them whom the virtue of the Most High shall inspire to either
come themselves or send assistance, be ready by the month of April or
of May next. As for such as cannot be prepared for the first passage,
let them at least be in a situation to make that which will take place
about the festival of St. John. The nature of the enterprise requires
promptness, and every delay must produce fatal consequences. For you,
prelates and others, faithful servants of Christ, help our cause with
the Most High by the fervour of your prayers; order it so that this be
done in all places under your direction, so that they may obtain for us
from divine clemency the blessings of which our sins render us unworthy.

_Done at Acre, the year of our Lord 1250, in the month of August_

_No. 34._

_A List of the Great Officers or Knights who followed St. Louis to
Tunis, according to Agreements entered into between them and the King,
in the year 1269, as set forth in the Manuscript from which this List
is taken; which Manuscript was inherited by M. Malet de Graville,
formerly Admiral, and was printed at the end of the Preface to the_
History of St. Louis, _by Joinville, edition of the Louvre_.

Monseigneur de Valery is to go himself, and thirty knights, and the
king is to give him eight thousand livres Tournois, and he is to have
food for his horses of the king during the passage; but they shall
not be fed at court (_n’auront pas bouche à court_), and shall remain
a year, he and his people, which year shall commence as soon as they
shall have arrived on dry land; and if it should so happen that by
agreement or by the accidents of the sea they should sojourn in some
island with the king, by which they should remain with the sea behind
them, the year shall commence with their sojourn, and the knights must
be paid half of their dues when the year begins, and the other half
when the first half shall have passed away; and if it be required to
know what shall be allowed to each banneret, it is to be two horses;
and to each knight not a banneret, one horse; and the horses to carry
the groom who shall take care of them; so that grooms have six horses
each in charge.[172] The constable shall go likewise, he and fifteen
knights, upon the same condition as the sieur de Valery, but he shall
only receive four thousand livres Tournois of the king.

Monseigneur Florent de Varannes, the admiral, shall go also upon the
same conditions, himself and twelve knights, and shall receive of the
king three thousand two hundred livres Tournois.

Monsieur Raoul d’Estrées, the marshal, shall go also on the same
conditions, himself and six knights, and shall receive sixteen hundred
livres Tournois.

Monseigneur Launcelot de St. Marc, marshal, shall go on the same
conditions, himself and five knights, and shall have fourteen hundred
livres Tournois.

Monsieur Pierre de Moleines shall go, himself and five knights, on the
same conditions, except that he and his companions shall eat at court,
and shall receive of the king fourteen hundred livres Tournois, and
four hundred livres as a gift.

Monsieur Collart de Moleines, his brother, shall go on the same
conditions, and in the same manner as Monsieur Pierre, his brother.

Monsieur Gilles de la Tournerelle shall go, himself and four knights,
on the same conditions, and shall eat at court.

Monsieur Malry de Roie shall go, himself and eight knights, on these
same conditions, and shall eat at court, and shall have two thousand
livres, and two hundred livres separately for himself.

Monsieur Gerard de Mortroise shall go, himself and ten knights, to
receive three thousand livres Tournois.

Monsieur Raoul de Neele, himself and fifteen knights, to receive four
thousand livres Tournois, and shall eat at their own expense (_à son
hostel_).

Monseigneur Almaury de Meulane, himself and fifteen knights, four
thousand livres Tournois, and shall eat at their own expense.

Monsieur Ausoat d’Offemont, himself and ten knights, twenty-six hundred
livres Tournois, and shall eat at the expense of the king (_en l’hostel
du roy_).

Raoul de Flamant, six knights; Baldwin de Longueval, four knights;
Louis de Beangen, ten knights; Jean de Ville, four knights; Malry de
Tournelle, four knights; William de Courtenay, ten knights; William de
Patay, himself and his brother, with many others, all receiving pay in
proportion to the number of their knights, and all eating at the king’s
expense (_en l’hostel du roy_).

The archbishop of Rheims to receive 1,111 m. l.

The bishop of Lengres to receive 1,111 m. l., with a vessel for his
thirty-two knights.

Monsieur Robert de Bois-Gencelin, quite alone, one hundred and sixty
livres, to eat at the king’s expense. Pierre de Sanz, Etienne Gauche,
Macy Delene, all the same, that is, quite alone, one hundred and sixty
livres, or, as the text is, eight twenty livres each, and eat at the
king’s expense.

Monsieur Gilles de Mailley, himself and ten knights, three thousand
livres, and passage and return for his horses; eat at court.

Monsieur Ytien de Morignac, himself and five knights, twelve hundred
livres, and passage and return for his horses; eat at court.

The Fourrier de Vernail, for himself and four knights, twelve hundred
livres, and eat at the king’s expense.

Monsieur Guillaume de Fresne, ten knights, twenty-six hundred livres,
and eat at the king’s expense. The count de Guynes, exactly the same.

The count de St. Pol, himself and thirty knights, for passage and
return of horses, for eating and for all other things, twelve thousand
livres, and two thousand private gift.

Monsieur Lambert des Limons, himself and ten knights in the pay of the
king, that is to say, to each, ten sols Tournois per diem, and shall
not eat at court,—amounts to eighteen hundred and twenty-five livres.

Monsieur Gerard de Campandu, himself and fifteen knights in the king’s
pay, shall not eat at court, as with M. Lambert, two thousand seven
hundred and thirty-seven livres ten sols Tournois.

Monsieur Raymond Alan, himself and five knights, at the king’s pay,
amounts to nine hundred and twelve livres ten sols Tournois.

Monsieur Jehan de Debeines, himself and ten knights, three thousand
livres, and passage and return for six horses, shall eat at court.

The mareschal de Champagne shall go, with ten knights, and shall
receive nothing of the king.

Monsieur Gaillard Darle, himself and five, in the king’s pay, nine
hundred and twelve livres ten sols.

Monsieur Guillame de Flandres, himself and twenty knights, six thousand
livres, and passage and return for his horses, and shall eat at court.

Monsieur Aubert de Longueval, himself and five knights, eleven hundred
livres, passage and return for horses, and eat at court.

_No. 35._

_Instructions of St. Louis, addressed, on his Death-bed, to
Philip-le-Hardi._[173]

Dear Son,—As it is the most earnest desire of my heart that thou
shouldst be well informed on all subjects, I think thou mayest derive
much instruction from this writing; often having heard thee say that
thou retainest better that which proceeds from me than from any other
person.

Dear Son, my first instruction to thee is, that thou shouldst love
God with all thy heart and with all thy power, for without that all
that thou doest is nothing worth: thou shouldst avoid all things that
thou thinkest may displease him, and which are within thy power, and
particularly thou shouldst have so strong a resolution that thou
wouldst not commit a mortal sin for anything that could happen to thee,
and that thou wouldst suffer all thy members to be hacked off, and thy
life taken away by the most cruel martyrdom, rather than knowingly
commit a mortal sin.

If our Lord should afflict thee with any persecution, malady, or other
thing, thou shouldst suffer cheerfully, and thank him for it and be
pleased; for thou must think that he hath done it for thy good, and
thou must further think that thou hast merited it, and more still if it
be his will; because thou hast but too little served him, or too little
loved him, and because thou hast done many things against his will.

If our Lord shall please to send thee any prosperity, health of body,
or other thing, thou shouldst thank him humbly, and shouldst take great
care not debase thyself by pride, or any other offence; for it is a
great sin to wage war against the Lord with his own gifts.

Dear Son, I advise thee to confess frequently, and always to choose a
confessor of holy life and sufficient knowledge, by whom thou mayest be
instructed upon the things thou shouldst shun and upon the things thou
shouldst do; and bear thyself in such a manner that thy confessors and
friends may dare boldly to instruct and reprove thee.

Dear Son, I advise thee to hear willingly the service of the Holy
Church, and when thou art in the chapel, beware of daring to utter vain
words. Repeat thy orisons with earnest attention, either by mouth or by
thought, and be particularly observant when the body of our Lord shall
be present at the mass.

_Dear Son, have a compassionate heart for the poor, and for those whom
thou thinkest are enduring sufferings of either heart or body, and
according to thy power comfort them willingly with consolation or with
alms._ If thou art sick at heart, tell it to thy confessor, or any
other person whom thou thinkest to be loyal and can keep thy secret:
_in order that thou mayest be ever at peace, never do anything that
thou canst not tell of_.

Dear Son, entertain willingly the company of good men, whether
religious or secular, but eschew the company of the wicked; hold
willingly good conversation (parlements) with the good, and willingly
hear our Lord spoken of in sermons; and in private seek earnestly for
pardon. Love good in others, and hate evil, and never suffer words
to be spoken in thy presence that may lead people to sin, never hear
willingly others spoken ill of, or any words that may disparage our
Lord, or our Lady, or the saints. Never suffer any such speech without
reproving it; and if it should proceed from a clerk, or so great a
person that thou canst not punish him, cause it to be told to him who
can inflict justice for it.

Dear Son, take care that thou beest so good in everything, that it may
appear thou art grateful for the blessings and honours that God has
heaped upon thee, so that if it please our Lord that thou shouldst
come to the honour of governing the kingdom, thou mayest be worthy to
receive the holy unction with which the kings of France are consecrated.

Dear Son, if thou shouldst attain the kingdom, take care to possess the
qualities which belong to kings; that is to say, be so just as never
to swerve from justice, whatever may happen to thee. _If a quarrel
should arise between a poor man and a rich man, take the part of the
poor man against the rich man, until thou shalt ascertain the truth,
and when thou shalt know it, do justice._ If it should so happen that
thou shouldst have a dispute with another person, maintain the cause
of the stranger before thy council: do not appear to be too forward in
thy quarrel, until thou shalt be certain of the truth; for those of thy
council might fear to speak against thee, which thou oughtest not to
desire.

Dear Son, if thou learnest that thou art possessed of anything
wrongfully, either in thy own time or in that of thy ancestors,
immediately restore it, however great the matter may be, in land,
money, or other property. If the affair be obscure, so that thou canst
not arrive at the truth, make such peace, according to the advice of
worthy men, that thy soul or that of thy ancestors may be entirely
freed from it: and if ever thou hearest that thy ancestors have made
any restitution, take great pains to learn whether nothing still
remains to be restored; and if thou findest there is, make restitution
instantly, for the good of thy soul and that of thy ancestors.
Be diligent to protect in thy territories all kinds of people,
particularly persons belonging to the holy Church; defend them from
injury both in their persons and their property, and I hereupon remind
thee of a saying of King Philip, one of my ancestors, as one of his
council has told me he heard him speak it. The king was one day with
his privy council, and some of his counsellors said that the clerks did
him great wrong, and they wondered that he suffered it. He replied: “I
believe that they do me great wrong; but when I think of the honours
our Lord has conferred on me, I by far prefer suffering my loss or
injury, to doing anything which might create a misunderstanding between
me and the holy Church.” I repeat this to thee, that thou mayest not
lightly believe those who speak against persons connected with the holy
Church. In such a way honour and protect them, that they may be able to
perform the service of our Lord in peace. I teach thee this, in order
that thou mayest principally love religious people, and mayest succour
them in their wants; and those by whom thou shalt think our Lord is
best honoured and served, such love better than others.

Dear Son, I desire that thou shouldst love and honour thy mother,
and that thou shouldst willingly receive and observe her good
instructions, and be inclined to place faith in her good counsels; love
thy brothers, and always watch over their good and their advancement;
be to them in the place of a father, to lead them to all that which is
good; but take care, that for the love of any one, thou dost not fall
off from acting rightly, or do anything that ought not to be done.

Dear Son, I advise thee, that all the benefices of the holy Church
which thou shalt have to bestow shall be given to persons judged worthy
by the great council of _prud’hommes_; and it appears better to me that
thou shouldst give to them who have nothing, and will employ thy gifts
well, if thou searchest for them diligently.

Dear Son, I advise thee to avoid, as much as it shall be possible, to
enter into war with any Christian; and, if any one do thee wrong, try
by every means to learn if there be no way of maintaining thy right
without going to war, observing that this is to avoid the sins that
are committed in war. And if it should happen that it be proper for
thee to make it, or that any one of thy men fail in his duty, or commit
wrong against any church, or any poor person whatever, and will not
make amends, for which, or for any reasonable cause, it be proper for
thee to make war, carefully _give orders that the poor people, who have
committed neither crime nor offence, be protected, let no injury fall
upon them either by fire or other means_; for it will be much better
for thee to contend with the evil-doer, and take his castles by storm
or siege: but be sure to be well advised before thou movest in any war;
be sure that the cause be perfectly just, that thou hast summoned the
evil-doer, and hast waited as long as thy duty will permit.

Dear Son, I advise thee, that when wars shall arise in thy dominions
among thy men, that thou shouldst take all possible pains to appease
them; for that is a thing which is pleasing to our Lord; and Messire
Saint Martin has given a very great example of it, for he went to
restore concord among the clerks who were in the archbishop’s palace,
although at the time he knew from our Lord that he must die; and it
appeared to him that by doing so he ended his life worthily.

Dear Son, be sure that thou hast good judges and provosts in thy
dominions, and frequently examine whether they are doing justice, and
whether they are doing wrong to nobody, and are acting as they ought;
in the same manner be sure that they who live in thy court (_ton
hostel_), commit no injustice; for however thou mayest hate doing ill
to others, thou oughtest still more to hate the ill which should come
from those who receive the power from thee, and shouldst take great
heed that this never should happen.

Dear Son, I advise thee to be always devoted to the Church of Rome, and
to our holy father the pope, and to pay him the respect and honour due
to thy spiritual father.

Dear Son, confer power freely upon well-intentioned people who know how
to employ it properly, and take great pains to remove all sins from thy
territories,—that is to say, profane swearing and everything that may
be said or done in contempt of God, our Lady, or the saints; carnal
sins, gaming with dice, tavern-drinking and other vices. Suppress, in
thy dominions, wisely and prudently, all rebels and traitors against
thy power; drive them and all ill-disposed persons from the land, until
it be quite purged of them. When, by the sage counsel of worthy people,
thou shalt hear of any good thing to be done, forward it by every means
in thy power, giving proofs that thou acknowledgest the blessings our
Lord has bestowed upon thee, and that thou art willing to return him
thanks for them.

Dear Son, I advise thee to take great care that the money thou shalt
spend shall be properly expended, and, moreover, that it be justly
levied: this is a thing of which I should wish thee to be particularly
heedful; that is to say, avoid extravagant expenses and unjust
extortion, let thy money be justly received and well employed; and this
may our Lord teach thee, with everything that may be profitable and
suitable to thee!

Dear Son, I pray thee, if it shall please our Lord that I should quit
this life before thee, that thou wilt help me with masses and prayers,
and that thou wilt send to the congregations of the kingdom of France,
to make them put up prayers for my soul, and that thou wilt desire that
our Lord may give me part in all the good deeds thou shalt perform.

Dear Son, I give thee every blessing that a father can and ought to
give to a son, and I pray our Lord Jesus Christ, that by his great
mercy, and by the prayers and the merits of his blessed mother the
Virgin Mary, and of the angels and archangels, and of all the male
and female saints, that he will keep and defend thee from committing
anything that may be against his will, and that he will give thee grace
to perform his will, and that he may be served and honoured by thee:
and may he grant to thee and to me, by his unbounded generosity, that
after this mortal life, we may come to him for life everlasting, there
where we may see him, may love him, and may praise him without end.
Amen.

To him be all glory, honour, and praise, who is one God with the Father
and the Holy Ghost, without beginning and without end. Amen.

_No. 36._

_Edward I., King of England._

As our author has said but little to show English readers what part
this, one of their greatest kings, played in the holy wars, we offer an
extract from the chronicler Walter Hemingford, canon of Gisseburne, of
whom Michaud speaks highly.

Edward, son of Henry III., took part in the crusade of Louis IX. He
set out, about the feast of St. Michael, to Aigues-Mortes, where he
embarked, and at the end of ten days, landed at Carthage, and was
received with much joy by the Christian princes who were then there;
that is to say, Philip of France, who had just succeeded Louis IX.,
his father; Charles king of Sicily, and the king of Navarre. Walter
relates that Edward was disgusted with the treaty made between the
Christian kings and the king of Tunis, and would take no part in it.
The English prince went to Acre with a thousand picked men, and reposed
for a month, in order to refresh his troops, and become acquainted
with the country. At the end of the month, many Christians joined him,
and leaving Acre, at the head of seven thousand men, he marched to a
distance of twenty leagues from that city, took Nazareth, and killed
a great number of Saracens. The army then returned towards Acre, but
were followed by the enemy, who hoped to surprise them in some valley,
or confined place. The Christians, upon becoming aware of their
intentions, faced about, killed many, and put the others to flight.

Towards the feast of St. John, Edward, learning that the Saracens were
within fifteen miles of Acre, marched out, fell upon them, at break
of day, killed about a thousand of them, and put the rest to flight.
The name of Edward was soon spread among the enemies of Christ, and
beginning to dread him, they devised means to get rid of him. The
great emir of Jaffa, feigning a wish to be converted to the Christian
faith, sent to him several times a slave, bearing letters, but charged
secretly with the commission of assassinating the king, which the
slave executed. But fortunately Edward escaped the consequences by the
assistance of skilful leeches. As soon as he was cured, he concluded a
truce for ten years, and returned to Europe with his Crusaders.

_No. 37._

_The Openings of the Troncs._

M. Michaud has given a very long account of the openings of the troncs,
of which we only think it necessary to offer our readers a small
portion, to show them the nature of the thing. The continued repetition
of the names of French towns, &c., with the amount of money found in
the troncs, can be interesting to nobody.

On Low Sunday, the 19th day of April, in the year 1517, between the
hours of eight and nine after mid-day, was raised and carried away
the tronc of the metropolitan church of St. Stephen of Thoulouse,
closed and fastened with three keys, and sealed with two seals, and
placed in the archiepiscopal house of the said Thoulouse, by the said
commissary, treasurer, or receiver and comptroller, in the presence
of Messire Jehan de Verramino, canon and chancellor of the said
church; Thomas le Franc, rector of the said church; Domengo Vaussenet,
burgess, and several others; and on the next day, in the presence of
as above, the said commissary, receiver, and comptroller opened the
said tronc, where they took and found for the confessionals the sum
of six hundred and fifty-one livres, six sols, six deniers in full,
for one thousand one hundred and fifteen confessions, which have been
distributed; for this

6c. 51 liv. 6s. 4d. (sic)

Of other money found in the said tronc on the day and year aforesaid,
arising from the pardons and jubilee of the crusade, the sum of four
hundred and ninety-nine livres, fifteen sols, four deniers Tournois

ci. 499 liv. 15s. 4d.

From another opening of the trone of Thoulouse, at the feast of the
following Christmas, in the said year 1517, the sum of twenty-seven
livres, three sols, nine denier Tournois.

27 liv. 3s. 9d.

From another opening of the said trone of Thoulouse, made the first
day of May, 1518, which is the second of the year 1518, in which there
was found, as well for money for the jubilee as for confessionals, the
sum of two hundred and five livres, ten sols, six deniers Tournois;
for this

205 liv. 10s. 6d.

From another opening made the 7th day of June, of the said year, there
was found, as well for jubilee as for confessionals, the sum of one
hundred and twenty-seven livres, two sols Tournois; for this

127 liv. 2s.

From an opening of the tronc of Castannet, in the diocese of
Thoulouse, there was found, as well for confessionals as for the
jubilee, the sum of fourteen livres, one sol, five deniers Tournois;
for this

14 liv. 1s. 5d.

&c. &c. &c.

From the opening of the various troncs in the diocese of Thoulouse,
within and without the city, in the years 1517 and 1518, many being
opened several times, they collected an amount which stands thus at
the end: SUMMA TOTALIS _receptœ presentis computi_

3,700 liv. 18s. 6d.

The expenditure of this money is detailed equally minutely; of which we
will offer a few examples.

EXPENDITURE

OF THIS PRESENT ACCOUNT,

AND, IN THE FIRST PLACE,

_Moneys paid to People who are to account for them_.

To Master Jehan Grossier, notary and secretary of the king our lord,
and by him commissioned to keep the account, and receive the moneys
for the crusade granted by our holy father the pope to the king our
lord, in his kingdom and other lands and lordships owing allegiance to
him, the sum of fifteen hundred and thirty-two livres, seventeen sols,
four deniers Tournois, which the present receiver owes on account of
the said receipt which he has made of the moneys for the said crusade
to the said city of Thoulouse, which sum has been paid to the said
Grossier, in virtue of the letters missive of our lord the king,
given at Amboise, the 25th day of January, there rendered, as by his
quittance, signed by his hand, the 26th day of February, in the year
1517, thus so rendered, as appears; and for this

1,532 liv. 17s. 4d.

To the said Master Jehan Grossier, by his written quittance, the 10th
day of June, in the year one thousand five hundred and eighteen,
the sum of two hundred and forty-eight livres, three sols Tournois,
which the said receiver ought, upon receiving the said receipt, pay
him, by virtue of the letters missive of the king our lord, given at
Amboise, the last day of April, as by said quittance, here rendered,
as appears; for this

248 liv. 3s.

To the same Master Jehan Grossier, for another written quittance on
the 20th day of May, 1520, the sum of six hundred and twenty-five
livres, fourteen sols, five deniers Tournois, which the said receiver
ought to pay him, as by his said quittance, here rendered, as appears;
for this

625 liv. 14s. 5d.

_Other Expenses made by the said Master Jehan Clucher, by the order of
Messire Josse de la Garde, Doctor of Theology, Vicar-General of the
Very Reverend Father in God, Monseigneur the Archbishop of Thoulouse,
Commissary, ordered by the King our Lord, on the matter of the
Crusade, and according to the Letters Missive and Instructions signed
by the hand of the King, transcribed and rendered at the commencement
of this Account._

For the expenses of the commissaries, receiver, comptroller, and
notary, for having been, with seven horses, setting out on the
22nd day of April, in the year 1517, through the diocese of the
archbishopric of Thoulouse, to collect the troncs and boxes, in which
they were engaged for the space of thirteen days, the sum of twenty
livres, nine sols, five deniers Tournois, which has been paid by the
present receiver by order of the said commissary, as appears by the
papers signed and certified by his hand, and by Monsieur Raymond
Raffin, canon in the metropolitan church of Thoulouse, comptroller,
deputed by our lord the king to assist in collecting the money for the
said crusade,[174] containing the expense of this account rendered,
and containing likewise a certification of the payment of all the said
expense, instead of quittance (receipt); for this the sum of

20 liv. 9s. 5d.

To Pierre Langiere, the sum of sixteen sols Tournois, for having
pasted up four hundred articles, and for having placed and fixed about
two hundred of them at the doors and cross-ways of the said Thoulouse,
for the feast of Easter; for this

16s.

To Messire Pierre Ferrestiere, Anthoine Chassantre, and Durant
Veissiere, priests, for having carried the said articles, at the said
time, to Montastruc, Versveil, and Carmaing, the sum of sixty sols
Tournois; this

60s.

To Georges Ruveres, for having made two tin cases to put over the
tronc, the sum of ten sols Tournois; this

10s.

To Thomas Noel, for having made the tronc for the said crusade, at
Thoulouse, the sum of sixty-three sols, four deniers Tournois; this

63s. 4d.

To Jehan Dernent, for having bound about with iron the coffer of the
said tronc, and made the padlock for the same, the sum of eleven
livres, T.; this

11 liv.

To Master Stephen Fabry and Jehan Galmart, for having carried the said
articles into several places, and for writing-paper and packthread to
tie up the packets, the sum of four livres, two sols, nine deniers
Tournois; this

4 liv. 2s. 9d.

To William Perolle, for having carried some confessionals to Cluriac,
the sum of twelve sols Tournois; this

12s.

To Lion de Veausclera, for four padlocks for the said tronc, the sum
of forty sols Tournois; this

40s.

To the bell-ringers of St. Stephen of Thoulouse, for what may be due
to them for having rung the Pardon, at the late festival of Easter,
the sum of sixty sols Tournois; this

60s.

To la Roussignolle, for twelve cloth bags to put the money into, the
sum of eight sols, six deniers Tournois; this

8s. 6d.

To Master Jehan Galmar, for having been to fix the troncs in various
places, and having furnished nails for the padlocks, the sum of
twenty-seven sols, six deniers

27s. 6d.

To Bertrand Beix, for having served, or waited at, the tronc of St.
Stephen of Thoulouse, for the space of fifteen days, the sum of
seventeen sols, six deniers Tournois

17s. 6d.

For the dinner[175] which was made for those who were present to see
the money counted from the tronc of the said St. Stephen of Thoulouse,
and for the cook, the sum of seventy-two sols Tournois

72s.

To the preachers of Thoulouse, for having preached the said pardons,
the sum of eighteen livres Tournois; this

18 liv.

To Master Jehan Bourlier, notary,[176] for having attended the placing
and removing of the said troncs, in the said diocese of Thoulouse, for
the space of fifteen days, at the period of Easter, the sum of fifteen
livres Tournois

15 liv.

To Master Jehan Terrein, of Thoulouse, the sum of a hundred sols
Tournois, for having superintended the giving out of the letters, and
obtaining the names and surnames of those who took them to the church
of Thoulouse, at Easter, this

100s.

To the bell-ringers of the said St. Stephen, for ringing the bells and
cleaning the church, the sum of forty sols Tournois; this

40s.

To those who sealed the confessionals of the said crusade and jubilee,
the sum of six livres Tournois, this

6 liv.

To Messire Jehan Bonissent, secretary of Monseigneur de Thoulouse, for
having made eight mandatory letters on parchment, and having signed
four hundred articles to be posted upon the doors of churches, the sum
of six livres Tournois, this

6 liv.

To Jehan Grant, printer, for having printed a thousand small articles,
and a hundred confessionals, on parchment, the sum of one hundred and
ten livres Tournois; this

110 liv.

To Jehan Bodret, apothecary, of Thoulouse, for thirty-one pounds of
red wax, and also for four quires of paper, the sum of ten livres,
seventeen sols, six deniers Tournois; this

1O liv. 17s. 6d.

To Master Guillaume de Villano, notary, for having signed and filled
up the confessionals and commissions, and having made the other acts
of the said crusade, the sum of ten livres Tournois; this

10 liv.

To the Receiver of the said crusade, for having been to place the
troncs and collect the money, for the attendance of thirteen days, the
sum of twenty-eight livres Tournois

28 liv.

To Monsieur the Comptroller of the said crusade, for the same cause,
the sum of twenty-eight livres Tournois; this

28 liv.

To Monsieur the Commissary of the said crusade, with three horses, for
the same cause, the sum of forty livres Tournois; this

40 liv.

To Master Jehan Bourlier, for having made two duplicates of the
receipt and expense of the said crusade, the sum of thirty sols
Tournois; this

30s.

To Raymond de Vlino, for having made three hundred and fifty coats
of arms, at twelve deniers Tournois each, amounting to the sum of
seventeen livres, ten sols Tournois; this

17 liv. 10s.

To those who sealed the said confessionals, both on parchment and on
paper, and for having folded them, the sum of four livres Tournois

4 liv.

Then follows a list of amounts paid to preachers of the crusade, which
is far too long for insertion, but all tending to prove that the task
was not performed gratuitously. We have extracted the above articles
from the interminable account to show our readers something of the
nature of the charges made by various classes for work done early in
the sixteenth century, but more particularly to point out, after the
money had been extorted from the pious or the charitable, how many
hands were dipped into the troncs before their contents were applied
to their destined purpose. _The preachers, as appears by the following
items and many others of the account, took a fifth part of what was
found in the troncs at the time of opening them._

To the preachers who have preached in the city of Thoulouse, for
the fifth part of four hundred and nine livres, sixteen sols, eight
deniers Tournois, which have been found in the said tronc, opened at
several festivals, has been paid over the sum of eighty-one livres,
nineteen sols, four deniers Tournois; this

81 liv. 19s. 4d.

To the preacher of Lisle en Jourdain, for HIS fifth part of one
hundred and ninety-eight livres, three sols, seven deniers Tournois;
this

39 liv. 3s. 7d.

Nobody seems to have touched the tronc without benefit; thus there
are sixty sols to Jehan Turein for taking charge of the tronc, at
Easter; and fifteen sols to a child who _cried_ at the tronc. The high
officials took each one hundred livres per annum whilst the crusade was
being preached, and their underlings did nothing without remuneration.

_No. 38._

_Memoir of Leibnitz, addressed to Louis XIV._

After the example of M. Michaud, we do not hesitate to lay before our
readers the following paper, although it bears little relation to
our history. A document passing between two such men as Leibnitz and
Louis XIV., upon a speculative, yet an important question, cannot be
without interest; besides which, there is very little doubt that it
fell into the hands of Buonaparte before he undertook his expedition to
Egypt. It is generally believed that this Memoir of Leibnitz, upon the
expedition to Egypt, was preserved, up to the period of the revolution,
in the archives of Versailles, and that this historical document
disappeared during the political troubles of France. An extract from
it was published in an English pamphlet in 1805; and another extract
was made in a book entitled _Voyage en Hanovre_, published in 1805. M.
Michaud has made more use of the English pamphlet than of the latter
publication. M. Mangourit, the author of the Voyage, saw in the library
of Hanover a copy of the Memoir addressed to Louis XIV., written by
the hand of Leibnitz; it had for title, _De Expeditione Egyptiatica,
Epistola ad Regem Franciæ scripta_. M. Mangourit informs us that
Marshal Mortier ordered a copy to be made of it, to be sent to Paris,
where it was placed in the library of the king. It appears that the
Memoir was sent a short time before the famous passage of the Rhine and
the war against Holland. M. Mangourit is persuaded that Leibnitz, whom
he represents as the instrument of some cabinet, had no other motive in
persuading Louis to invade Egypt but to divert him from his threatened
attack upon the Batavian republic. M. Michaud says that this opinion
appears improbable, and that the author gives no satisfactory proof of
it. We think some of our readers, at least, will incline to the opinion
of M. Mangourit.

Leibnitz commences his Memoir by declaring that the fame of his
majesty’s wisdom has induced him to present to him some reflections
upon a subject familiar to preceding ages, but recently neglected
and forgotten; it concerns an enterprise, “the greatest that can be
attempted, and at the same time the most easy of such as are considered
great. I venture to add,” continues he, “that it is the most holy,
the most just (_addere audeo, sanctissimum justissimumque_), and that
it is not accompanied by any danger, even should it be attempted in
vain. It agrees likewise so well with the kind of preparations already
made, that it would appear to have been a long time in contemplation,
and would thus increase the admiration of those who justly call the
conceptions of your majesty _the miracle of secrecy_. It would do more
harm to Holland than could be hoped for from the most brilliant success
of an open war, without leaving them the power of opposing any obstacle
to it. It would accomplish the object of the present armament, by
procuring for France the empire of the seas and of commerce. In short,
all hatreds and all jealousies being thus extinguished at a single
blow, your majesty would find yourself raised by it, with general
assent, to the rank of supreme arbiter of Christendom—the highest
possible to be conceived, and it would cover your name with an immortal
glory, for having cleared, whether for yourself or your descendants,
the route for exploits similar to those of Alexander.”

After having made it plain that the present moment was exceedingly
favourable, that there was no sovereign more powerful than the king of
France, or one more beloved by his subjects; “I am persuaded,” says he,
“that there is not in the known world any country the conquest of which
deserves so much to be attempted, or which would be so likely to give
supremacy, as the Egypt which I delight in calling the Holland of the
East, as I call France the China of the West.”

“The marriage between this prince and this country, that is to say,
between the king of France and Egypt, appears to me to interest equally
the human race and the Christian religion.”

Leibnitz afterwards says, that upon examining the motives which
determined Louis IX. to attempt the conquest of Egypt rather than that
of Jerusalem, he had become convinced that they merit the greatest
attention.

“After the death of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, Philip, surnamed
Augustus, and Richard, king of England, besieged and took St. Jean
d’Acre. There was among the prisoners an Arabian named Caracous, whom
history represents as a prophet. This man, hearing Philip frequently
speak of the aim the Christian powers proposed to themselves in this
war, declared that they could never retain Jerusalem and the Christian
sovereignty in Asia, unless the Egyptian monarchy were overthrown; and
for that purpose it was of the greatest importance to get possession of
Damietta. From this arose a dissension between Philip and Richard, &c.
Richard himself, after having failed in Palestine, wished to undertake
an expedition against Egypt, but death prevented him.

“The Christian powers at length became aware of their error, and Pope
Innocent III. promoted an expedition against Egypt, the issue of which
was unfortunate. Then came the expedition of St. Louis, which failed
from the imprudence and want of skill in the leaders. Louis exposed his
army in the interior of the country, between two branches of the Nile,
with his rear and the course of the river in the power of the enemy.
Instead of getting possession of the coasts and securing the Nile for
his fleet, the only means of establishing his conquest, provisioning
his army, and making himself safe from all attacks, he allowed himself
to be surrounded; the Saracens intercepted his supplies, and finished
by destroying the Christian army.

“Afterwards, the wars between France and England, as well as those
which broke out between France and the house of Austria, put an end
to all idea of invading Egypt, till the time of Ximenes, who was
the author of a league, formed for the conquest of this country,
by Ferdinand of Castile, Emanuel of Portugal, and Henry VIII. of
England.[177] Three princes,” says Leibnitz, “of whom it may, with
reason, be said, that each of them laid the foundation of the power and
commerce of their respective people; and that it is which France now
expects from Louis XIV.

“This project was defeated by the death of Ferdinand, which caused the
crown of Spain to pass to the house of Austria.”

Leibnitz then gives a sketch of the revolutions of Egypt, from the
earliest ages to the time it was subdued by the Turks; to show the
importance that has always been attached to the possession of Egypt,
and to prove that it has never opposed much resistance to a skilful and
powerful conqueror.

“Egypt, now become a province of the Turkish empire, will be, on that
account, more easily subdued; not only from the difficulty the Port
will have in throwing in succours, and the inclination the inhabitants
always have for revolt, but still more from its being no longer the
seat of an empire.”

After this preamble, Leibnitz, developing his plan, argues that the
conquest of Egypt is the most certain road to supremacy in Europe;
or, in other terms, that it will strengthen the best interests of
France,—that, considering the magnitude of the object, the enterprise
is very easy;—that there is no risk;—that it is in accordance with
sound policy;—that it should not be delayed;—in short, that it is
great, just, and pious.

“This supremacy, which it is so important for France to obtain,
consists in the possession of as much power as can be reasonably
hoped for; for it cannot look to a universal monarchy, but only the
general direction or arbitration of affairs. Universal monarchy is
an absurdity; the history of Europe proves it. By making war upon
Christian states, weak aggrandisements can alone be obtained, and a
small accession of territory acquired. Such means are not suitable for
a most Christian king, or a great monarch:—marriages, elections, and
successions produce more.

“War should alone be directed against barbarous nations; and among
these, it is incontestable that by a single fortunate blow (and the
French are particularly formed to strike such), empires may be in an
instant overthrown and founded. In such wars are found the elements of
high power, and of an exalted glory.

“It is certain that the power of France must increase with the peace of
Europe, and that it must be weakened by ill-timed wars. Let it then be
employed against the barbarians, and for the restoration of Egypt. In
America, the Spaniards, the English, and the Dutch would render every
enterprise impossible; but, directed towards Turkey, no one would dare
to oppose it; Egypt being once invaded, the war that we should then
make would be rendered sacred by universal approbation; and instead of
the deserted countries of Palestine, only celebrated by its ruins, we
should have, as the rewards of our efforts, _that eye of countries,
that mother of grain, that seat of commerce. (Non, deserta illa, ruinis
tantùm nobilis Palæstina, sed oculus regionum, mater frugum, sedes
commerciorum acquiretur.)_

“Of all the regions of the earth, Egypt ought to be considered,
after China, as the first. It possesses so many advantages, that the
imagination can add nothing to them. It is the principal isthmus of
the globe, the seas of which it divides in such a manner, as to create
the necessity for passing round Africa. It is at the same time the
barrier and the passage between Africa and Asia. It is the point of
communication, and the general entrepôt of the commerce, on one side,
of India, and on the other, of Europe. It is in some sort the eye of
the adjacent countries, rich by the fertility of its soil, and by its
great population, amidst the deserts which surround it. It unites the
wonders of nature and of art, which, after so many ages, ever appear to
furnish subjects for fresh admiration.”

After having supported his opinions by numerous quotations upon the
resources Egypt possesses, Leibnitz continues thus:—

“Suppose Egypt should be occupied by an army of the most Christian
king, we shall see how much this event must contribute to political
supremacy. (_Pars melior Franciæ cedet; hæc maris Mediterranei domina,
imperium Orientalis resuscitabit._)

“It is evident that the Turkish empire might be overthrown by the
attacks of the Germans and the Poles, if the germs of rebellion, which
are there now forming, were developed generally; and there is no doubt
that Muscovy and Persia would take advantage of that circumstance.
Then, the most valuable portion of that monarchy would fall to France;
which, becoming thus mistress of the Mediterranean, would reëstablish
the Eastern empire. From Egypt it would extend its empire over the
ocean, and would take, without difficulty, possession of the Red Sea,
and the isles near Madagascar. It would not be long in gaining the Sea
of Ethiopia, the Persian Gulf, and the isle of Ormuz, which commands it.

“The conquest of Egypt would likewise be followed by great and
important changes in Europe. The king of France could then, by
incontestable right, and with the consent of the pope, assume the
title of emperor of the East; he could add to his title of eldest
son, that of patron (_advocatus_) of the Church, and by the great
advantages procured to the Holy See, hold the pontiffs much more in
his power than if they resided at Avignon. Italy and Germany would be
definitively delivered from the fear of the Turks, and Spain from that
of the Moors. The commerce of the world would be shared between France
and the house of Austria; at length, the reconciliation between the
most powerful families would be cemented to the satisfaction of both,
France having for its share the East, and Spain the West.[178] And if
they should wish to be united by the indissoluble tie of their common
interest, they would gain the object which the wisest of ministers
have endeavoured to attain in the conferences of the Pyrenees; they
would become the arbitrators between other powers; they would prepare
the happiness of the human race, and they would create an everlasting
reverence for the memory of the great king, to whom so many miracles
were due.

“With Egypt, the Dutch might easily be deprived of the commerce of
India, upon which great part of their power depends, and they would
by that be more directly and necessarily injured than by the most
brilliant success in an open war. The Christian religion would again
flourish in Asia; the world would obey the same laws, and the whole
human race would be united by the same ties; so _that, with the
exception of the philosopher’s stone, I know nothing that can be
imagined of more importance than the conquest of Egypt_.”

When discussing the facility of the execution, Leibnitz considers
siders—“The forces to be employed—the means of transporting the
troops—the climate of the country—its fortifications and military
strength—the manner of making war there—the interior troubles of
Egypt—the dispositions of the neighbouring nations—and the allies and
auxiliaries, as well of the aggressors as of the invaded country.”

With respect to the forces of France, Leibnitz refers to Louis, who
must be better acquainted with their numbers than he; he however
believes that there is in fact already more strength than would be
required.

Francis, duke of Urbino, demanded 50,000 men to overturn the Ottoman
empire. For the conquest of Egypt, thirty thousand picked men would
be sufficient. Emanuel the Wise, king of Portugal, flattered himself
that he could succeed with a much smaller number. “There is no doubt,”
adds Leibnitz, “that our numbers would prodigiously increase in a short
time, by the accession of Arabs and Numidians, whilst the Turkish
forces in that province must be very inconsiderable.

“But suppose,” continues Leibnitz, “we were compelled to embark 50,000
men; that is a force which France would easily provide. For, although
I am persuaded that 20,000 would amply suffice to occupy and guard the
coast of Egypt, it would be prudent to draw advantage from the forces
now assembled, and to effect by one stroke, by one vigorous operation,
the conquest of the whole of Egypt.” Leibnitz further advises that the
troops should be encouraged by speeches, indulgences, rewards, honours,
&c. &c.; thinks it of much less importance to employ a great number of
troops than it is to select them well.

“Some persons are averse to the transporting of large armies by
sea; but wiser persons are of a contrary opinion, and think that
the trifling inconveniences of this mode of transport are more than
compensated by very great advantages. The first inconveniences to which
they are subject on board, are neither dangerous nor of long duration;
they may be considered even as evacuations favourable to health.
Scorbutic affections appear only in long voyages, and acute diseases
are occasioned by intemperance, which discipline may prevent, or by a
change of climate, which cannot be experienced in the Mediterranean. No
mutiny need be apprehended, because the soldiers are in some sort in
the power of the sailors.”

The memorial of Leibnitz here presents an historical summary of the
armies embarked at different periods, from the Punic wars to the last
conquests made in Asia and America, by the Spaniards, the Portuguese,
the English, &c.; and whilst recommending that the vessels should not
be too heavily laden as regards troops, he remarks that the navigation
of the Mediterranean has, for a long time, become familiar to French
sailors, and that there could be no danger, if proper attention were
paid to seasons. French and Venetian vessels constantly visit Candia,
and from that island to Egypt the passage is not difficult. Let us add,
that the isle of Malta is a secure station for the fleet, that isle
being united to France by an infinite number of ties, since the major
part of the knights and the grand master of the order are French.

“After the port of Alexandria shall have been taken by a coup-de-main
(which cannot fail of succeeding), the coasts of Syria, as well as the
isles of Cyprus and Candia, will necessarily fall, provided that the
Turks are not able to undertake anything by sea to oppose it.”

The memorial of Leibnitz then rejects all fear of the insalubrity of
the climate of Egypt; he expatiates upon the healthy qualities of the
waters of the Nile, gives dietic rules, recommends abstinence from
wine, and points out the variations in the weather in the different
months of the year.

Then he speaks of the saltpetre which Egypt produces in such abundance,
and continues: “The means of the natural defences of Egypt are the
deserts and seas that surround it, and the Nile; its artificial
means are its castles and its cities. The sea and the Nile, far from
injuring, facilitate the employment of naval forces, and the deserts
will interrupt communications with the other parts of the Ottoman
empire, and will prevent the Turks from throwing imposing succours
into the Egyptian territory. The strong places are either upon the Red
Sea or upon the Mediterranean.” Here Leibnitz describes Alexandria,
Rosetta, and Damietta, with the Bozag, pointing out the weakness of
these places. “The coast of the Red Sea is still more neglected, and
would fall quickly into the power of a Portuguese fleet, acting in
concert with a French force from Madagascar;” for Leibnitz supposes
that the Portuguese would be more disposed to second the views of the
French than to oppose them.

The memorial describes very minutely the Arabian Gulf and the Strait
of Bab-el-Mandel; he affirms that all places on the coast want
fortifications; he speaks particularly of Suez, Cossier, Souakem, and
at length of Cairo, which would not offer, any more than the rest, a
strong resistance.

“Could the resistance of Cairo,” says Leibnitz, “alone prevent France
from raising itself above all glory past or present? It would be
disgraceful for so powerful a nation, when engaged in such a mighty
enterprise, to entertain a moment’s doubt of final success in presence
of this last obstacle. For France would not be fighting then for either
Dunkirk or Gravelines, or for Maëstricht; but for the dominion of the
seas, for the empire of the East, for the overthrow of the Port, and
for universal supremacy;—all results from the conquest of Egypt.”

Then follow some geographical details upon the coast of Syria, and the
ports and cities of that country; that is to say, El-Aresch, Byblos,
Tripoli, Alexandretta, Aleppo, and Damascus.

“Alexandretta commands the defiles of Cilicia. By the possession of
this place, an army marching from Asia Minor upon Palestine could
be forced to make a long and painful circuit, across a country half
desert, and across portions of Cilicia, Armenia, and Mesopotamia.

“Aleppo and Damascus are the only cities capable of resisting for a
moment our ulterior operations after the reduction of Cairo. Although
they are distant from the sea, they must be secured, since then we
shall command all the country on this side of Mount Amanus.

“The Turks may, it is true, if they are warned, place reinforcements
in Egypt, and even fortify Alexandria and render Egypt nearly
inaccessible. It will therefore be essential to preserve the most
profound secrecy upon the project, and accelerate the departure of the
armament for its destination. When the expedition shall be once made,
it will be no longer in the power of the Turks to place an obstacle in
the way of its success, since the departure of so formidable a fleet
will give alarm for the seat of government itself. Under this point
of view it will be even useful to spread a report that it is in fact
destined against Constantinople, in order that the Port should unite
and concentrate, for the protection of the capital, its divided forces,
and thus render the distant provinces the weaker. The French army being
thus suddenly thrown into Egypt, it would require six months for the
Turks to assemble an equal force, or even a much longer time, if Turkey
were at the same time engaged in a Polish or Hungarian war. Moreover,
as soon as the expedition should have succeeded, Persia, which cannot
declare itself upon our promises alone, will not fail to rise likewise.
And if the expedition took place in that season of the year which,
according to the opinion of experienced persons, would appear the most
suitable, it would be absolutely impossible for the Turks to arrive in
any useful time, if even they had 100,000 disposable forces; because
Egypt would be then inundated with the waters of the Nile, in which our
fleet would dominate; and because the Turkish army could not set out on
its march before the following winter, &c.

“Suppose now that Egypt should be in our power, and, which is not at
all improbable, the Turks should find themselves at peace with all
their neighbours, that there should be no trouble among themselves, and
that they should be in a condition to advance with 100,000 effective
men; suppose, on the other side, that we were only able to oppose
this force with 30,000 men, since we must leave 20,000 behind, to
maintain our position in Egypt, and reduce the places not yet subdued:
I affirm that these 30,000 men would be sufficient to repulse the
Turks: let us add, that if measures be well taken, there is no doubt
that considerable reinforcements might arrive from Europe, and that the
Christian subjects of the Port, as well as the natives, would flock
eagerly to range themselves under our Banners. But suppose our force
did not exceed 30,000 men, this troop would be perfectly in a state to
resist the Turks by two different manœuvres, whether by waiting for
them in the plains of Egypt, between Suez and Cairo; or whether in
marching forward to meet them in Arabia Petræa, between Gaza and the
mountains, or in Syria between Alexandretta and Mount Amanus, called
now the mount of Scanderoun, or El Lucan.

“There are in Arabia Petræa three narrow defiles, through which the
caravans pass on their way from Egypt into Asia. One of these defiles
is on the right, when we are coming from Egypt, and leads to the
eastern shores of the Red Sea; another passage is on the left, on
the shores of the Mediterranean,—it leads into Palestine and Syria;
the third, situated between the two preceding ones, comes out at
Mount Horeb, and at the monastery of St. Catherine. The two first
passages lead into Arabia, where no army could penetrate without great
difficulty. There only remains then the third route, which goes from
Egypt into Palestine, across Idumea. But this passage is so narrowed
on one side by the Mediterranean Sea, and on the other by the foot of
the mountains of Arabia Petræa, that the sultan of Egypt would easily
have expelled the army of Selim from his country, if he had taken care
to secure the passage between Syria and Cilicia: it was by neglecting
this precaution that Darius very much facilitated the conquest of Asia
by Alexander. If the sultan of the Mamelukes, abandoning Palestine,
had taken up a position in the narrow strait near Gaza, or near Sihor
(called in Scripture the river of Egypt), which is a species of hollow
ravine, running from the mountains to the sea, and if he had there
awaited his enemy, it is certain that in that position, 30,000 men
would have been able to resist hundreds of thousands.

“Suppose the Turks were able to force not only the passage of
Alexandretta, but likewise that of Gaza, they yet could not recover
Egypt; for, in this case, our army would keep in its rear the Nile and
a very fertile country, whilst the enemy would have nothing in their
rear but the deserts of Arabia. And if, in this position, we were to
avoid a pitched battle, which would be easy from the nature of the
country, the Turkish army would necessarily waste away, and would be
forced, by want of provisions, to retire into Syria, and leave us in
the tranquil enjoyment of our conquests.”

Leibnitz brings several historical facts to the support of his opinion;
he proves that the Turks are much less formidable, less warlike, less
numerous than they formerly were; he enters into details upon the
seraglio, the revenues, and the military and maritime establishments of
the Ottoman empire.

The author assigns reasons for hoping that, after the first news of
the success of Louis XIV., there would ensue partial revolts, and then
a general insurrection of the pachas, the civil functionaries, the
soldiers, the Christians, and finally of the whole people. “I venture
to affirm,” says he, “that all the subjects of the Ottoman empire are
unhappy, discontented, anxious for change, and that at this moment they
are only restrained by the disheartening remembrance of their former
attempts to throw off the yoke.

“A French author, very well acquainted with the affairs of Turkey,
and who is surprised that an empire so constituted subsists so long,
forms the conjecture that God, who does everything for the best, had
raised and sustained this powerful nation for the good of his Church,
and to punish Christians for their sins and vices;’ but I,” continues
Leibnitz,—“I am convinced that the time approaches in which the
Omnipotent will visit his people, in which the fury of barbarians will
be at an end, in which a far happier epoch will open on the Christian
world. Much might be said with regard to prophecies; upon periods in
human affairs; upon the inevitable catastrophes of empires; even upon
the traditions of the Turks themselves, which make them look for their
destruction from a country between two seas. This prediction has been
commonly applied to Constantinople, and sometimes to the Morea; but no
one has hitherto thought of Egypt.

“Let us, however, without presuming to penetrate the secrets of
destiny, draw our conclusions from the ordinary course of affairs. It
is notorious that the Sultan has entirely lost, in the opinion of his
subjects, his character of inviolability, and this circumstance must
necessarily facilitate his defeat.”

All that follows this is but a picture of the disorder which reigns
in the political organization of the Turkish empire. Therefore,
Leibnitz thinks that the conquest of Egypt would shake the Port to its
foundation. He adds: “_Audaciter dico, flagrabit Turcia seditionibus,
si volumus_; and if the Port were at the same time engaged in a war
with Poland or Hungary, _jam ruina ipsa_,” says he, “_et totius
corporis paralysis universalis indubitata est_.”

_No. 39._

_Capitulations between France and the Ottoman Port._

Francis I. was the first of our kings who made treaties with the Port.
He obtained in 1535, from Soliman the Canonist, the first capitulations
in favour of commerce and of the Catholic religion, in the states of
the Grand Seignor; in 1604, Henry IV. obtained from the Sultan Ahmid
I. the renewal of them with some additions; in 1675 they were renewed
and augmented under the reign of the Sultan Mehemed IV., at the demand
of Louis XIV.; in 1740, Louis XV. obtained from the Sultan Mahmoud the
renewal of the ancient treaties, with considerable additions.

France has had since that period other negotiations with the Port;
but these negotiations have not produced any treaty, the dispositions
of which are either new or important. The documents necessary for the
history of the relations of France with the Ottoman empire have always
been carefully preserved in the chancery of the French embassy at
Constantinople. It is there we must search for exact notices to add to
that which we have been able to advance upon this question.

We will give, from these capitulations, as much as particularly
concerns the subject of our history, or which may throw a light upon
the Ottoman policy.

“The Emperor Sultan Mahmoud, son of Sultan Moustapha, ever
victorious.[179]

“Here is that which ordains this glorious and imperial signature,
conqueror of the world, this noble and sublime mark, whose efficacy
proceeds from divine aid.

“I, who by the excellence of the favours of the Most High, and by
the eminence of the miracles filled with blessings from the chief of
the prophets (to whom be the most ample salutations, as well as to
his family and his companions), am the Sultan of glorious sultans,
the emperor of puissant emperors, the distributor of crowns to the
Cosroes, who are seated on thrones, the shadow of God upon earth, the
servant of the two illustrious cities of Mecca and Medina, august and
holy places, to which Mussulmans address their vows; the protector and
master of the holy Jerusalem; the sovereign of the three great cities
of Constantinople, Adrianople, and Broussa, as well as of Damascus,
the odour of Paradise; of Tripoli, of Syria, of Egypt, the wonder
of ages, and renowned for its delights; of all Arabia; of Africa, of
Cairovan, of Aleppo, of Irak, Arab, and Adgen; of Bassora, of Lahra, of
Dilem, and particularly of Bagdad, capital of the caliphs; of Rakka,
of Mossoul, of Chehregour, of Diarbeker, of Zulkadric, of Ergerum the
Delightful; of Sebarta, of Adana, of Caramenia, of Kars, of Ichidder,
of Van, of the isles of the Morea, of Candia, of Cyprus, Chio, and
Rhodes; of Barbary, of Ethiopia; of the places of war, Algiers,
Tripoli, and Tunis; of the isles and the coasts of the White Sea and of
the Black Sea; of the countries of Natolia, and the kingdom of Romelia;
of all Kurdestan, of Greece, of Turkomania, of Tartary, of Circassia,
of Cabarta, and of Georgia; of the noble tribes of the Tartars, and of
all the hordes which depend upon them; of Caffa, and other surrounding
places; of all Bosnia and its dependencies; of the fortress of
Belgrade, a place of war; of Servia, as well as of the fortresses and
castles existing in it; of the countries of Albania, of all Wallachia,
of Moldavia, and of the forts and holds which are in these cantons;
possessor besides of a number of cities and fortresses, of which it is
superfluous to repeat or boast the names. I, who am emperor, asylum of
justice and king of kings, the centre of victory, Sultan, son of the
Sultan, Emperor Mahmoud the conqueror, son of Sultan Mustafa, son of
Sultan Muhammed: I, who by my power, the origin of facility, am adorned
with the title of emperor of the two lands, and as a crowning grandeur
to my caliphate, am illustrated by the title of emperor of the two seas.

“The glory of the great princes of the faith of Jesus, the elect of
the great and the magnificent of the religion of the Messiah, the
arbitrator and mediator in the affairs of Christian nations, clothed
with true marks of dignity and honour, filled with grandeur, with
glory and majesty, the emperor of France, and of other vast kingdoms
which depend upon it, our very magnificent, very honoured, sincere,
and ancient friend, Louis XV., to whom God grant all success and
felicity, having sent to our august court, which is the seat of the
caliphate, a letter containing evidences of the most perfect sincerity,
and of the most particular affection, candour, and uprightness, and
the same letter being destined for our Sublime Port of felicity,
which, by the infinite goodness of the incontestably majestic Supreme
Being, is the abode of sultans the most magnificent, of emperors the
most respectable; the model of Christian nobles, skilful, prudent,
esteemed, and honoured minister, Louis Sauveur, marquis de Villeneuve,
your present counsellor of state, and your ambassador to our Port of
felicity (may the end of which be crowned with good fortune), having
demanded permission to present and remit the said letter, which has
been granted to him by our imperial consent, conformably with the
ancient usages of our court; and consequently the said ambassador
having been admitted to the foot of our imperial throne, surrounded
with the light of glory, he has there delivered the said letter, and
has been the representative of your majesty, in participating our
imperial grace and favour; the translation of its friendly tenor was
afterwards presented and reported, according to the ancient customs
of the Ottomans, at the foot of our sublime throne, by the channel
of the very honoured Elhadjy Mehemed Pacha, our first minister, the
absolute interpreter of our ordinances, the ornament of the world, the
support of the good order of nations, the orderer of the grades of our
empire, the instrument of the glory of our crown, the channel for the
favours of royal majesty, the very virtuous Grand Vizier, my venerable
and fortunate minister and lieutenant-general, of whose power and
prosperity may God perpetuate the triumph!

“And as the expressions of this friendly letter make known the
desire and eagerness of your majesty to preserve, as heretofore, all
the honours and ancient friendship, hitherto maintained from time
immemorial between our glorious ancestors (may the light of God be upon
them), and the very magnificent emperors of France; and as in the said
letter there is question, in consideration of the sincere friendship
and the particular attachment that France has always evinced towards
our imperial house, again to renew, during the happy period of our
glorious reign, and to strengthen and enlighten, by the addition of
some articles, the imperial capitulations, already renewed in the year
of the Hegyra 1084, under the reign of the late Sultan Mehemed, our
august grandfather, noble and generous during his life, and happy in
his death; which capitulations had for object, _that the ambassadors,
consuls, interpreters, merchants, and other subjects of France, should
be protected and maintained in all peace and tranquillity_,[180] and
it has at length arrived at our imperial knowledge that these points
have been conferred upon by the said ambassador and the minister of
the Sublime Port: the foundations of the friendship which, from time
immemorial, has subsisted with firmness between the court of France
and our Sublime Port, and the convincing proofs which your majesty has
given of it, particularly during our glorious reign, giving reason
to hope that the ties of such a friendship can only be drawn closer,
and become stronger from day to day; these motives have inspired us
with sentiments conformable with your desires; and wishing to procure
activity in commerce, and security to goers and comers, which are the
fruits such a friendship ought to produce; we not only confirm by these
presents in their full extent, the ancient and renewed capitulations,
as well as the articles concerted at the above date, but to procure
more ease for our merchants and greater vigour in commerce, we have
granted them exemption from the right of _Mezeterie_, which they have
paid at all times, as well as several other points concerning commerce,
and the safety of comers and goers, which have been discussed, treated
of, and regulated, in good and due form, in the divers conferences
which have been held upon the subject, between the said ambassador,
furnished with sufficient power, and the persons deputed on the part of
our Sublime Port. After the entire conclusion of all, my supreme and
absolute Grand Vizier, having rendered an account of it to our imperial
Stirrup, and it being our will to show specially on this occasion
the value and esteem that we entertain for the ancient and constant
friendship of the emperor of France, who has just given us fresh and
particular marks of the sincerity of his heart, we have granted our
sign imperial for the execution of the articles newly concluded, and
consequently of the ancient and renewed capitulations; having been
transcribed and reported exactly, word for word from the commencement,
and followed by the articles newly regulated and granted; these
present imperial capitulations have been placed and consigned, in the
above-said order, in the hands of the aforesaid ambassador.”

Articles 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 of the capitulations contain what
follows:—“As inimical nations, who have no positive ambassadors at
my Port of felicity, formerly went and came in our states, under the
banner of the emperor of France, whether for commerce, whether for
pilgrimage, according to the imperial permission they had had for it
under the reigns of our ancestors of glorious memory, as likewise
it was granted by the ancient capitulations accorded to the French:
and as afterwards, for certain reasons, the entrance to our states
was positively prohibited to these same nations, and they were even
withdrawn from the said capitulations; nevertheless, the emperor
of France having evinced by the letter he has sent to our Port of
felicity, that he should wish that the inimical nations, to whom
trading in our states has been forbidden, might have liberty to come
and go to Jerusalem, in the same manner as they were accustomed
to go and come, without being in any way interrupted; and that if
consequently it were permitted them to come and traffic in our states,
it should be under the banner of France, as formerly, the demand of
the emperor of France has been complied with, in consideration of the
ancient friendship, which from the times of my glorious ancestors has
subsisted, from father to son, between your majesty and the Sublime
Port, and we have issued an imperial edict, of which the following is
the tenor:—That the Christian and inimical nations which are at peace
with the emperor of France, and who shall desire to visit Jerusalem,
may go thither and return, within the boundaries of their state, in the
customary manner, and in full liberty and security, without any person
causing them trouble or impediment; and if it should afterwards prove
convenient to grant to the said nations the liberty of trading in our
states, they will then go and come under the banner of the emperor of
France as formerly, without being allowed to go and come under any
other banner.

“The ancient imperial capitulations, which have been in the hands of
the French since the reigns of my magnificent ancestors to the present
day, and which have just been reported in detail above, having been now
renewed with an addition of some new articles, conformably with the
imperial order, issued in virtue of my khatt-cherif; the first of these
articles declares, that the bishops dependent upon France, and the
other ecclesiastics who profess the French religion, of whatever nation
or race they may be, as long as they shall keep within the limits of
their state, shall not be troubled in the exercise of their functions
in those parts of our empire where they have been long settled.

“The French ecclesiastics who, according to ancient custom, are
established within and without the city of Jerusalem, in the church of
the Holy Sepulchre called Kamama, shall not be disturbed in the places
of visitation which they inhabit, and which are in their hands, which
shall remain still in their hands as formerly, without being disturbed
in that respect, or by the imposition of tributes; and should any
dispute arise, which cannot be decided on the spot, it shall be sent to
my Sublime Port.

“The French, or those who depend upon them, of whatever nation or
quality they may be, who desire to go to Jerusalem, shall not be
molested either in going or returning.

“The two religious orders which are at Galata, that is to say, the
Jesuits and the Capuchins, having two churches there, which have been
in their hands _ab antiquo_, they shall remain in their hands, and they
shall retain the possession and the advantages of them: and as one of
these churches has been burnt, it shall be rebuilt as justice requires,
and it shall remain, as formerly, in the hands of the Capuchins,
without molestation or disturbance. There shall be no uneasiness
entertained with regard to the churches the French have at Smyrna,
Seyda, Alexandria, and other _Echelles_; and no money shall be required
of them under any pretence.

“The French shall not be disturbed, when, within the bounds of their
own quarter, they read the Gospel in their hospital of Galata.”

Several of these dispositions not having been strictly executed, the
Port renewed them in 1740; this is the renewal, as it is expressed in
article 82.

“When the places, of which the ecclesiastics dependent upon France have
possession at Jerusalem, as has been mentioned in the articles solemnly
granted and now renewed, shall be in want of repair, to prevent the
ruin to which they would be exposed by the course of time, it shall
be permitted to grant, at the request of the ambassador of France,
residing at my Port of felicity, orders for their being repaired in
a way conformable to justice; and the cadis, commandants, and other
officers, shall not be allowed to throw any impediment in the way of
the things granted by order; and as it has happened that our officers,
under pretext of having made secret repairs in the said places, made
many visits in the course of the year, and extorted money from the
ecclesiastics, we command that, on the part of the cadis, commandants,
and other officers who may be there, there shall be only one visit made
in the year to the church of the place that is called the Sepulchre of
Jesus; and the same in the other churches and places of visitation. The
bishop and ecclesiastics dependent upon the emperor of France, who are
in my empire, shall be protected as long as they confine themselves
to the limits of their own state, and nobody shall prevent them from
performing their rites according to their own customs, in the churches
which are in their hands, as well as in the other places in which they
dwell: and when our tributary subjects and the French shall go and
come among one another, for the purpose of buying, selling, or other
affairs, they shall not be molested, against the same laws, on account
of this intercourse; and as it is decreed in the preceding stipulated
articles that they shall be allowed to read the Scriptures in the
hospital of Galata, and this has, nevertheless, not been done, we
order, that in whatever place that hospital may for the future be, in a
juridical form, they may be allowed to read the Scripture there, as is
their duty, without any inquietude upon the subject.”

The capitulations or treaties with the Port are too extensive to
allow us to give them entirely here. The articles, which amount
to eighty-five, regulate the rights of persons and the commercial
privileges of which the Port has granted the enjoyment to all the
French established or travelling in the countries of its domination;
they regulate also the diplomatic relations between the two powers, and
the prerogatives of the ambassadors of the king of France.

_No. 40._

_Note by M. Raynouard upon the Work by M. Hammer, entitled_ Mysterium
Baphometi Revelatum, _&c._

Since the proscription of the knights of the Temple and the abolition
of the order, five hundred years had passed away, when accusations,
evidences, and judgments, were again submitted to the revision of
history;—the renown of the order and the memory of the knights are
again reëstablished in the opinion of impartial persons.

A new adversary of the Templars presented himself, and setting aside
the accusations which contemporary persecutors had imagined, invented
other crimes. In spite of the interval of time, he boasted of being
able to produce material proofs: “There is no need of words,” says M.
Hammer, “when stones serve as witnesses.”

What are these monuments with which the persons who prepared and
achieved the ruin of the Templars were unacquainted, or which they
neglected? How did they escape the industrious perquisitions of the
envy, hatred, and sagacity of the inquisitors? Why did not the divers
apostates, who, from ambition or fear, gave evidence against the order,
point out monuments which then would have been more numerous and more
striking, and whose existence might have justified their shameful
desertion? And when the churches and houses of the Templars were
occupied by successors who had so much interest in procuring pardon for
the rigour of the spoliation, how was it that none of these successors
discovered these material proofs, which, according to M. Hammer,
proclaim to the present day the apostasy of the Templars?

The work of this scholar is entitled, _Le Mystère du Baphomet révélé;
or, the Brothers of the Military Order of the Temple convicted, by
their own Memorials, of sharing the Apostasy, Idolatry, and Impiety of
the Gnostics, and even of the Ophianites_.

The following contains the exposition, the analysis, and the
recapitulation of M. Hammer.

“We read, in the procedure undertaken against the order of the Temple,
that the knights worshipped an idol of _Bafomet form—in figuram
Bafometi_.[181] The decomposition of this word furnishes _bafo_ and
_meti_. _Bafo_, in Greek, signifies _dyeing_, or _dipping_, and, by
extension, _baptism_; _meti_, signifies _spirit_. The _Bafomet_ of the
Templars was then _the baptism of the spirit—the Gnostic baptism_,
which was not performed by the waters of redemption, but which was
a spiritual lustration by fire. _Bafomet_ signifies, then, _the
illumination of the spirit_.

“As the Gnostics had furnished the Templars with Bafometic ideas and
images, the word _meti_ (_metis_) became venerated among the Templars:
“I shall, therefore,” adds M. Hammer, “furnish proofs of this decisive
circumstance.

“The Gnostics were accused of infamous vices. The _metis_ was
represented under symbolical forms, principally under that of serpents,
and of a truncated cross in the shape of _Tau—T_.

“The Gnostics,” continues M. Hammer, “did not always employ the word
_meti_ in their monuments; they likewise made use of the word _gnosis_,
which is synonymous, and is found among the Templars.”

Developing his system of accusation, M. Hammer constantly maintains
that it is proved by the proceedings instituted against the Templars,
that they adored Bafometic figures; he produces medals which bear these
pretended Bafometic figures, and particularly some medals upon which
may be read, _meti_, with a truncated cross,[182] and others which
represent a temple, with the legend, _Sanctissima Quinosis_, that is
to say, _Gnosis_. He indicates likewise Gnostic vases and chalices;
and attributing them to the Templars, advances, that the romance of
the _Saint Graal_, or holy cup, is a symbolic romance, which at the
same time conceals and proves the apostasy of the knights; and believes
that he recognises in churches which formerly belonged to the Templars,
or which he pretends to have belonged to them, Bafometic figures, and
Gnostic and ophitic symbols.

M. Hammer expends much erudition in describing the various and
numerous systems which preceded and produced the sect of the Gnostics;
at length he comes to the Bafometic figures; he produces twenty-four
of them, which appear to him to bear the characters of the _Bafomet_;
they are covered with astrological signs; many are encircled by a
serpent, and hold this cross by a handle, which was called _key of
the Nile_ by the Egyptians, and which has been considered the symbol
of fecundity; they bear inscriptions, some in Latin, some in Greek,
which denote nothing but proper names; and others in Arabic would be
unintelligible, if we had not the means of comparing them with those
upon the vases. The principal vase bears an Arabic inscription, which
refers to the worship of a divinity named _Mété_; it has the title of
_Teala_—all-powerful, and of _Nasch_—producer. M. Hammer pretends
that the _Mété_ was the same as the _Sophia_ and _Achamet_ of the
various sects of Gnostics.

But no relation presents itself, either near or remote, with the
Templars.

It was M. Nicolaï who, in a German work, entitled, _An Essay upon the
Secret of the Templars_, first employed this word _Bafomet_, and who
attached to it the idea of the image of the supreme God, in the state
of quietude attributed to him by the Manichean Gnostics; it was this
learned man who first supposed that the Templars had a secret doctrine
and initiations of several grades; and he pretends that the Saracens
had communicated this doctrine to them.

In order to destroy all these systems, it is sufficient to prove that
it is impossible to prove that the word _Bafometi_, which is reported
in the proceedings against the Templars, signified anything but
_Mahomet_.

M. le Baron Sylvestre de Sacy had already condemned this explanation of
M. Hammer; and if the latter persisted in not recognising in _Bafomet_
the name of _Mahomet_, it would be easy to prove to him that authors of
the middle ages often wrote Bafomet for Mahomet;—authorities are not
wanting.

If the word even of the Bafometic or Gnostic sect does not exist, if it
never has existed, the entire system is without a basis.

But even if it could be proved that a Bafometic sect had existed, if we
were in possession of certain details upon its opinions and mysteries,
how could M. Hammer prove that the Templars belonged to this sect?

M. Hammer has collected and caused to be engraved as many as a hundred
medals and other monuments which he attributes to the Templars, because
he fancies he finds upon them the _Mete_ and the _Tau_ of the Gnostics.

The medals he produces are not even proofs of the existence of a sect
of Gnostics; and even if this existence could be demonstrated, these
medals and these monuments being entirely foreign to the Templars, why
should they be applied to them?[183]

To give an idea of the manner in which M. Hammer tries to prove, by the
medals, that the Templars were Gnostics, I will cite only these upon
which this savant fancies he reads the word _Quinosis_ or _Gnosis_.

In the coin 80, we see, according to M. Hammer, the temple of Jerusalem
with four towers; the inscription is: + S. S. SIMOONJU[prostrate d]A;
but reading it the reverse way, and beginning, not by the final A, but
by the prostrate d, which M. Hammer has taken for a Q, whilst other
savants, who have quoted this medal, have thought it a D, he reads SSTA
QUINOMIS, although there is no T in the inscription; and considering
the M as a sigma reversed, M. Hammer has found QUINOSIS; then QUI into
G, and only making a single O of the two, he obtains GNOSIS; which,
according to his account, reveals and proves the secret of the Gnostic
Templars.

M. Hammer not only reads it backwards, but he begins by the penultimate
letter, and leaves the A, after which is a + which separates the
beginning of the inscription from its end. He adds a T, and supposes a
Greek letter mixed with the Latin inscription; and yet, after all these
changes, he cannot produce the word GNOSIS.

And what prevented him from seeing in this inscription what it really
is, SS. SIMON JUDA?

In the medal 99 we read in the same manner, S. SIMON VEL JUDA; in the
93rd, S. SIMON JUDA, &c. Nothing was more common in the middle ages
than coins which, on one side bear the name of a saint, and on the
other side the name of a city or prince.

Two of the coins upon which, instead of ST. SIMON and ST. JUDE, M.
Hammer records SAINT GNOSTIC, bear also the name of _Otto_, or _Otto_
MARCHIO. This circumstance is embarrassing for M. Hammer; he explains
it by saying that this Marquis Otho was a Gnostic, a protector of the
Templars, and initiated into their secret doctrines.

Seelander only reads St. Simon and St. Jude upon these coins; he
believes that this Otho might be Otho II., marquis of Brandenburg, who
lived about the year 1200. If the opinion of Seelander will not induce
M. Hammer to adopt this simple, natural, and evident explanation, he
may find in Otto Sperlingius the explanation of a similar coin, with
the inscription of St. Simon and St. Jude. The heads of the two saints
are close together, under the same crown. A. Mellen thought that this
coin was struck at Goslar, and Sperlengius adopts his opinion.

But even if it were allowed that these coins belonged to a sect of
Gnostics, I should continue to assert that M. Hammer does not at all
prove that the Templars made use of them. The reasoning of this savant
is reduced almost to this:—“These monuments are Gnostic, therefore
they relate to the Templars;” and to this:—“These monuments relate to
the Templars, therefore they are Gnostic.”

But let me be permitted to say once more, if the Templars had had
amongst them such Gnostic signs, how was it that these signs were not
made known and denounced when the question was to destroy the order?
How is it that they are never found anywhere but in Germany?

I should obtain the same result if I were to examine in this manner in
detail all that relates to the cups and chalices in which M. Hammer
believes he sees Gnostic emblems; not only is there nothing upon them
concerning the Templars, but M. Hammer has only collected them in
places and upon monuments quite foreign to the order of the Templars.

As to the Gnostic sculptures which M. Hammer persists in seeing in
some churches, is it not well known that we find in the churches of
the middle ages sculptures and monuments which it is very difficult
to explain, either on account of the moral and religious ideas which
the artists of the time expressed under very unsuitable images; or on
account of the pious allegories, the tradition of which is not come
down to us?

The relievos of the capitals of the church of St. Germaine des Prés
have embarrassed antiquaries, and if M. Hammer had found such in a
church of the Templars, he would not have failed to magnify by them his
act of accusation.

He cites seven churches in Germany, in which he pretends to recognise
Gnostic emblems: but he offers no proof that these churches belonged
to the Templars; and, even if the Order had built them, is it to
be conceived, that if there existed a secret doctrine among them,
the leaders would have exposed the symbols of it in public in their
churches? And how is it that they selected seven German churches to
receive these irreligious signs, whilst they did nothing of the same
kind in the three thousand churches they possessed in Christendom?

M. Hammer is not more fortunate when he seeks in romances, which speak
of the SAINT GRAAL, the emblematic history, or the symbol of the order
of the Temple.

These romances present nothing contrary to religion; the knights, who
are the personages, promise fidelity to God and the ladies; they arm
and fight for religion and beauty. Can we then be astounded that at the
period when these romances were composed, the search for the St. Graal,
or holy cup, was considered an exploit worthy of chivalry?

M. Hammer fancies he finds something very favourable to him in the
following passage:—“As the St. Graal came to Tramelet on the day
of Pentecost,”—he remarks that the festival of St. Graal was not
celebrated on Christmas-day, but at Pentecost; “if by this cup,” says
he, “had been meant, as some people suppose, the Lord’s cup, the
festival would have been celebrated either on Christmas-day or Holy
Thursday, and not on the day of Pentecost, which the Gnostics regarded
as very holy, as the day of the Holy Ghost, which was for the Gnostics
Sophia, and for the Templars METE.”

The reply to this is very easy:—1st. King Artus held his plenary
court on the great festivals of the year; it is not, then, surprising
that the St. Graal should arrive at Pentecost. 2nd. The author of the
romance could not choose the day of Christmas-day, which festival was
not appointed in the time of King Artus. 3rd. It is even probable that
the romance in question was composed before the institution of that
festival by Urban IV., in 1264.

M. Hammer has been sensible that it was strange to form, after a lapse
of five centuries, an accusation against the Templars quite different
from that which served as a pretext for the contemporary oppressors.
Therefore he advances that the pope, by the sentence which was
pronounced against the Templars, was willing to conceal the knowledge
of their true crimes; but he maintains, that when the archives of Rome
shall come to light, as everything does sooner or later, we shall there
find the proof of the crimes he now denounces.

How is it possible to be believed, that if the knights had been guilty
of the crimes M. Hammer attributes to them, the pope and kings would
have preferred the absurd system of accusation which they employed, to
a system such as that which M. Hammer puts forth?

But, besides, it is very certain that ALL the pieces which the archives
of Rome contained are now known: they are ALL marked with their numbers
in the notice of the unpublished pieces which have assisted in the
composition of _Les Monuments Historiques relatifs à la Condemnation
des Chavaliers du Temple, etc._ M. Hammer has nothing, therefore, to
hope from the archives of the Vatican.

This distinguished savant will some day acknowledge that he ought
not to have yielded to the desire of putting forth a new system of
denunciation against the order and the knights of the Temple. Their
terrible and celebrated catastrophe imposes the obligation of being
very circumspect and very severe in the choice of the means by which we
may allow ourselves to endeavour to deprive them of the just pity which
posterity has not refused to their fate.

INDEX.

Abaga, khan of the Tartars, sends ambassadors to Rome, iii. 26.

Abassides persecute the Christians, i. 8. Decline of their empire,
i. 13.

Aboubeker, his interview with Richard I. of England, i. 498.

Abou-bekr, founder of one of the Mohammedan sects, iii. 413.

Accien, sovereign of Antioch, i. 129.

Achard de Montmerle, i. 83.

Adel, the son of Saladin, ii. 3 n.

Adhémar de Monteil, bishop of Puy, engages in the first crusade,
i. 5, i. 87.
His enthusiastic bravery, i. 170, i. 173.

Adonis, the river, i. 306.

Adrianople, besieged by the Latins, ii. 166.
Battle of, ii. 167.
Siege raised, ii. 168.

Æneas Sylvius, bishop of Sienna, preaches a crusade against the Turks,
iii. 163 et seq.
Elected pope, under the title of Pius II., iii. 170.
See _Pius II._

Afdhal, son of Saladin, and commander of the Mussulman forces of
Egypt, i. 238.
His extensive empire, ii. 3.
Civil contests of, ii. 4 et seq.
Oath taken by the emirs of, ii. 3 n.
Rebellion against, ii. 4.

Africa invaded by the Christian forces, iii. 117 et seq.

Agriculture, products of, introduced into Europe during the middle
ages, iii. 329, iii. 330.

Aibek, assassinated, iii. 3.
His son raised to the throne of Egypt, iii. 4;
and dethroned, iii. 5.

Alaziz, sultan of Egypt, ii. 2, ii. 3 n.
Takes arms against his brother, ii. 4 et seq.

Albéric, son of Hugh de Grandménil, i. 83.

Alberon, archdeacon of Metz, slain, i. 131.

Albert, count of Blandras, i. 249.

Albigeois, religious principles of the, ii. 196, ii. 197.
Papal crusades and cruel wars against the, ii. 199, ii. 267,
ii. 310.

Alemar of Selingar engages in the holy war, ii. 465.

Aleppo, states of, i. 127.

Alexander of Macedon, amount of his forces, and his victories, i. 255,
i. 257.

Alexandretta taken possession of by the Crusaders, i. 119.

Alexandria captured and burnt by the Crusaders, iii. 116.

Alexius Comnenus I., emperor of Constantinople, seeks the assistance
of the Latins against the Turks, i. 44 and n., i. 45.
Alarmed at the vast number of Crusaders from the West, i. 88.(*)
(*) The name in this and a few of the following pages
is printed “Alexis”.
His character, i. 89.
His treatment of the Crusaders, i. 90.
His alliance with Godfrey de Bouillon, i. 92.
His reception of the French chiefs, i. 93, i. 94.
His suspicious treatment of the Crusaders, i. 104.
He perfidiously takes possession of Nice, in opposition to the
Latins, _ib._
His insidious policy, i. 105, i. 168, i. 282.
He sends an embassy to the Crusaders at Archas, i. 194.
Opposes the second body of them, i. 250.
The limits of his empire extended by the victories of the Crusaders,
and Constantinople rendered safe from the attacks of the
Saracens, i. 260.

—— Angelus, emperor of Constantinople, dethrones his brother Isaac,
ii. 62.
His character, ii. 75, ii. 158.
Expelled by the Crusaders, ii. 93.
His death, ii. 158.

——, nephew of Alexius Angelus, and son of Isaac, the dethroned
emperor, ii. 62, ii. 69.
Aided by the Crusaders, ii. 75.
His military operations and conquests, ii. 79, ii. 80.
Enters Constantinople in triumph with the besieging Crusaders,
ii. 95.
Crowned as joint emperor with his father, ii. 97.
His peculiar position, ii. 101, ii. 113.
His proposals to the Crusaders, ii. 102.
His contentions with the Bulgarians, ii. 105.
His character, ii. 107, ii. 118.
His dethronement and violent death, ii. 118.

Ali, founder of one of the Mohammedan sects, iii. 413, iii. 414.

Alides, party of the, i. 8.

Alise, of Antioch, i. 311.

Al-Mahadia, city of, captured and burnt, i. 40 and n.

Almamon, caliph of Bagdad, i. 9.

Almoadam elected to the throne of Egypt, ii. 417.
Enters into a treaty for the ransom of Louis IX., ii. 438.
Revolt of the Mamelukes against, ii. 439, ii. 440.
His assassination, ii. 441;
with whom terminated the Ayoubite dynasty, ii. 445.

Alp-Arsland, reign of, i. 32.

Alphonse, count, of Poictiers, engages in the holy war, ii. 393,
ii. 395.
Arrives at Damietta, ii. 396.

Alphonso, prince of Burgundy, i. 375.

—— II., of the house of Arragon, iii. 193, iii. 194.

Altamont castle, the seat of the “Old Man of the Mountain”, iii. 416,
iii. 417.

Amadeus, duke of Turin, i. 338.

Amalfi, city of, i. 85, i. 86.

Amaury, count of Jaffa, elected king of Jerusalem, i. 386.
His expedition to Egypt, i. 388.
He allies himself with the Egyptians to resist the Syrians, i. 390.
The Egyptians agree to pay him an annual tribute, i. 391.
Marries the daughter of the emperor Manuel, i. 392;
and makes war on Egypt, i. 394 et seq.
His projects against Egypt, i. 399.
Death of, _ib._

—— II., king of Jerusalem, death of, ii. 190.

Amurath, the Turkish sultan, iii. 123.
He enters into a treaty of peace with the Crusaders, iii. 138;
and afterwards defeats them with great slaughter, iii. 142.

Anaclet, the anti-pope, i. 76.

Ancona, the Crusaders under Pius II. collected at, iii. 178.

Ancyra, city of, taken by assault, i. 251.
Battle of, between Tamerlane and Bajazet, iii. 133.

André de Brienne, slain, i. 461.

Andrew, Brother, of Antioch, his strange address to Philip of France,
iii. 110.

—— II., king of Hungary, engages in the sixth crusade, ii. 217,
ii. 224.
He arrives in Palestine, ii. 225.
Returns to Europe, ii. 230.

Andronicus, emperor of Constantinople, iii. 122.

——, the “Nero of the Greeks,” dethroned, i. 446.

Angelli, Peter, author of a poem on the first crusade, i. 171 n.

Angelram, death of, i. 190.

Anjou, duke of, his heroism, ii. 413.

Anselm, archbishop of Milan, i. 249.

Anselme de Ribemont, death and character of, i. 190.

Antioch captured by Nicephorus, i. 13.
Renaud de Chatillon raised by marriage to the throne of, i. 103.
The Crusaders arrive at the city of, i. 127.
Its ancient celebrity, i. 128. Described, _ib._
Protracted siege of, i. 129 et seq.
Betrayed by Phirous, i. 147, et seq.;
and captured, i. 155-157.
Sufferings of the Crusaders at, i. 159, i. 160.
They march out of, and defeat the Saracens, i. 170-174.
Miraculous prodigies seen at, i. 173, i. 183.
Fatal epidemic at, i. 178, i. 179.
The Crusaders take their departure from, i. 187, i. 188.
Distresses of, i. 285.
Flourishing state of, i. 306.
Disputes respecting the sovereignty, i. 311.
Raymond of Poictiers appointed governor, i. 312.
Louis VII. arrives at, with a portion of the Crusaders, i. 360.
His splendid retinue, _ib._
Bohemond III. governor of, ii. 8.
At war with Armenia, ii. 9.
Territory of, ravaged by the Turcomans, ii. 372.
Captured and destroyed by the sultan of Cairo, and all the
inhabitants slaughtered or led into captivity, iii. 17, iii. 18.

Antiochetta, capital of Pisidia, the Crusaders arrive at, i. 114.

Antoninus, St., of Plaisance, voyage of, i. 7 n.

Apostoliques, their religious principles, ii. 197.

Arabians, their conquests, i. 10.
Their knowledge of medicine, iii. 336.

Archambaud de Bourbon, i. 359.

Archas, city of, described, i. 187, i. 188 and n.
Siege of, i. 189.

Architecture, progress of, during the crusades, iii. 330-332.

Arculphus, St., pilgrimage of, i. 7.

Argun, the Tartar chief, iii. 94, iii. 95.

Aristocracy, on the origin of, iii. 280 et seq.

Aristotle, philosophy of, introduced into Europe, iii. 338.

Armenians, slaughter of the, ii. 169.

Arms of the Crusaders, i. 99.

Arnold, a priest, elected pastor of the Church of Jerusalem, i. 236.

—— a Flemish preacher, his account of the siege of Lisbon noticed,
i. 375 n.

—— de Rohés, chaplain to the duke of Normandy, i. 191.
His incredulity in prodigies, i. 192.
His address to the Crusaders, i. 214.

—— of Bressia, i. 332.

Arpin, count de Berri, dies in slavery, i. 254 and n.

Arsouf, city of, i. 244.
Besieged and captured by the Mamelukes, iii. 11, iii. 12.

Arsur, rebellion and siege of, i. 267, i. 268.
Captured by Baldwin, i. 277.
Battle of, fought between Richard I. and Saladin, i. 487.

Art, works of, destroyed at Constantinople by the Latins,
iii. 438-440 (App.).

Artesia captured by the Crusaders, i. 127.

Artois, count de, ii. 396.
His rash bravery, ii. 403.
Is slain, ii. 408.
His letter on the taking of Damietta, iii. 456 (App.).

Arts, emulation in Europe for their cultivation, iii. 229.
Progress of during the period of the crusades, iii. 251,
iii. 328 et seq.

Ascalon, great battle on the plain of, between the Egyptians and the
Crusaders, i. 240-242.
Siege of, i. 244.
The Saracens defeated on the plains of, i. 297, i. 298, i. 402.
Destroyed by fire, i. 490.
Rebuilt by the Crusaders, _ib._
Surrendered to Saladin, i. 426.
Siege and capture of by Baldwin III., i. 384.

Aschmoum, canal of, military operations on the banks of,
ii. 399 et seq.

Asia subdued by the Turks, i. 32.

“Assassins” of Syria, origin and history of the, iii. 413,
iii. 420 et seq.
See _Ishmaëlites_.

“Assizes of Jerusalem,” collected by John d’Ibelin, i. 271 n.
Laws and spirit of the, i. 272, i. 273, i. 488.

Atabecks, dynasty of the, i. 306.
Decline of the empire of the, i. 399.

Atheling, Edgar, commander of the English, i. 205.

Attalia, the Crusaders arrive at, i. 357;
and suffer great hardships, i. 358.

Aubusson, grand master of the knights of St. John, iii. 188.

Augsburg, diet at, iii. 200.

Augustines, their quarrels with the Dominicans, iii. 210.

Avignon, assembly of Christian sovereigns at, to promote a fresh
crusade, iii. 113, iii. 114.

Ayoub, the father of Saladin, i. 369.

Ayoubites, princely race of the, ii. 3, and n.
Their empire, _ib._
Decline of their empire, ii. 237.
Discord among the family, ii. 376.
Extinction of the dynasty, ii. 445.

Aymeristes, religious principles of the, ii. 197.

Bacon, Chancellor, his dialogue “de Bello Sacro,” iii. 246.

Bagdad, the seat of the arts and sciences, i. 9.
Degeneracy of the caliphs of, i. 12, i. 13.
The caliphs of, the chiefs of Islamism, i. 383.
Captured by the Mogul Tartars, iii. 4.

Baghisian, the sovereign of Antioch, i. 129.

Bajazet I., the Turkish sultan, iii. 125.
Defeats the Christian forces, iii. 127, iii. 128.
His speech to the duke de Nevers, iii. 129.
Raises the siege of Constantinople, and being defeated at Ancyra by
Tamerlane, is taken prisoner, iii. 133.

—— II. succeeds Mahomet II., iii. 191.
Declares war against Venice, iii. 197.
Dethroned, and succeeded by Selim, iii. 201.

Balac, the emir, slain, i. 302.

Baldoukh, the emir, defeated, i. 123.

Baldwin, brother of Godfrey de Bouillon, engages in the first crusade,
i. 78.
His dissensions with the leaders, i. 116, i. 117.
Massacres the Turks, i. 118.
Joined by corsairs, _ib._
His hostile encounter with Tancred, i. 119.
His successes, i. 121, i. 122.
Founds the principality of Edessa, i. 124.
Sends magnificent presents to the leaders of the Crusaders, i. 146.
Visits Jerusalem, i. 269.
Elected king of Jerusalem on the death of Godfrey, i. 275.
Defeats the Saracens, i. 275, i. 276.
His quarrel with Tancred, i. 276, i. 277.
Carries on vigorous hostilities against the infidels of Palestine,
Egypt, &c., i. 277 et seq.
Anecdote of his humanity, i. 279.
His singular preservation, i. 280.
Lamentations for his supposed death, _ib._
His quarrels with the patriarch of Jerusalem, i. 285, i. 286.
Captures Ptolemaïs, i. 286.
His hostilities against Egypt, i. 293.
His death and character, i. 294.
His funeral, i. 295.

—— de Bourg, cousin of Godfrey de Bouillon, engages in the first
crusade, i. 78.
Defeated and taken prisoner, i. 283.
His release, and great poverty, i. 285.
Elected king of Jerusalem, i. 296.
Made prisoner by the Turks, _ib._
Released, i. 302.
His death and character, i. 310, i. 311.

—— III., king of Jerusalem, i. 316.
Form of his coronation, i. 317 and n.
Urges on the war against the Saracens, i. 363.
His military character, i. 384.
Death of, by poison, _ib._

—— IV., king of Jerusalem, i. 401.
His wars with Saladin, i. 402 et seq.
Death of, i. 412.

—— V., crowned king of Jerusalem, i. 407.
Death of, i. 412.

——, count of Flanders, engages in the fifth crusade, ii. 47.
Elected emperor of Constantinople, ii. 148.
Quarrels with Boniface, marquis of Montferrat, ii. 150-161.
His letter to the pope, ii. 152.
Defeated, and taken prisoner by the Bulgarians, ii. 168.
Romantic incidents of his life, ii. 171 and n.
His mysterious death, ii. 172.

——, son-in-law of John of Brienne, successor to the throne of
Constantinople, ii. 289.
His expulsion and great poverty, _ib._

—— II., emperor of Constantinople, his distressing situation,
iii. 9.
Driven from his throne by Michael Palæologus, iii. 10.

——, count de Hainault, engages in the first crusade, i. 78.
Perishes in Asia Minor, i. 177.

——, Archbishop, preaches the crusade in England, i. 441 and n.
His journey into Wales, iii. 408 (App.).

Baleau d’Ibelin defends Jerusalem against Saladin, i. 427.

Bar, count de, refuses the command of the Crusaders, ii. 54.

Barbarossa, Frederick, engages in the holy war, i. 444 et seq.
His victorious career, i. 448.
His death, i. 449.

Barbary invaded by the Christian forces, iii. 117 et seq.
The states of, taken under the protection of the Ottoman Porte,
iii. 220.

Barland, Adrian, his notices of Peter the Hermit, i. 41 n.

Barons of England, contests of the, with their sovereigns, iii. 257.

Barthélemi, Peter, a priest, pretended revelation of, i. 165.
Fanaticism of, i. 191, i. 192.
Submits to the ordeal of fire, and loses his life, i. 193.

——, Sieur, anecdote of, iii. 68.
Becomes a Mohammedan renegade, iii. 69, iii. 84.

Bathenians, a title given to the Ishmaëlites, iii. 419.

Battle, wager of, during the middle ages, iii. 312.

Bavaria, diet convoked in, i. 338.

Baysy, the birth-place of Godfrey de Bouillon, i. 76 n.

Beard, pledging and redeeming of the, i. 285 and n.

“Bearers of the cross,” title assumed by the first Crusaders,
i. 52 and n.

Bedouin Arabs, their bravery, ii. 391.

Bela IV., king of Hungary, his fear of the Tartars, iii. 6 n.

Belgrade besieged by the Turks, iii. 166.
The Turks defeated, iii. 167.
Taken by the Turks, iii. 213.

“Belial, children of”. i. 65.

Belinas, in Syria, pillaged by the Crusaders, ii. 475.

Bellerophon, statue of, at Constantinople, ii. 138 and n.

Berengaria of Navarre, i. 475.
Married to Richard I. of England, i. 476.

Berenger II., count of Barcelona, penitential pilgrimage of, i. 27.

Bernard, count of Carinthia, i. 338.

Bernard. See _St. Bernard_.

Bernicles, punishment of the, ii. 434.

Bertrand, son of Raymond de St. Gilles, i. 287.

Berytus, plain of, i. 198.
Wealth and importance of the city of, ii. 18.
Besieged by the Crusaders, _ib._
Captured and destroyed by the Saracens, iii. 89.

Bethlehem, i. 21.
The Crusaders take possession of, i. 201.

Bethonopolis, city of, i. 492.

Bibars Bendocdar, the Mameluke chief, ii. 404 and n.
Slays Almoadam, the sultan, ii. 440.
Assassinates Koutouz, iii. 7.
Is proclaimed sultan of Egypt, iii. 8.
Declares war against the Christians of Palestine, _ib._
His continued victories over them, iii. 11 et seq., iii. 63.
His death and character, iii. 64, iii. 65.

Biblies taken by the Crusaders, i. 288.

Bilbeis, city of, i. 388.
Besieged and captured by the king of Jerusalem, i. 394.

Bissarion, Cardinal, speech of, iii. 172.

Bithynia, hostilities in, between the Crusaders and the Turks,
i. 99 et seq.

Blanche, queen-regent of France, ii. 350.
Accompanies her son, Louis IX., on the outset of his crusade,
ii. 368.
Death of, and grief of Louis IX., ii. 475.

Blois, count of, obtains possession of Bithynia, ii. 162.
Is slain, ii. 167.
Anecdote of his devoted heroism, iii. 298.

Blondel, the minstrel, emancipates Richard I. from imprisonment,
iii. 406 (App.).

Bohemond, prince of Tarentum, one of the leaders of the Crusaders,
i. 84.
His character, i. 85, i. 86.
Embarks for Greece, i. 86.
Reception of, by Alexius of Constantinople, i. 93.
Defeats the Turks in Phrygia, i. 108-111.
His barbarous treatment of the Turkish spies, i. 137.
His ambitious views, i. 147.
His defence of Antioch, i. 163.
Made prince of the city and territory, i. 186.
Visits Jerusalem, i. 269.
Surprised and captured in an expedition against the infidels,
i. 275.
Regains his liberty, and at Antioch resists the aggressions of
Alexius, i. 282.
Defeated at Charan, and escapes to Italy, i. 282, i. 283.
Arouses Europe against the infidels, i. 283, i. 284.
Embarks with a large army against the Emperor Alexius, i. 284.
Returns to Tarentum, where he dies, _ib._
Letter from him and others detailing their victory over the
infidels, iii. 360 (App.).

Bohemond, prince of Antioch and Tripoli, a descendant of the prince of
Tarentum, treacherously taken prisoner by the Armenians, ii. 8.
His death, ii. 190.

——, count of Tripoli, enters into a treaty with Bibars, iii. 17.
Bibars’s insulting letter to, on the capture of Antioch, _ib._
His city of Tripoli captured, iii. 69.

Boniface, marquis of Montferrat, elected commander of the fifth
crusade, ii. 55.
Captures Constantinople, ii. 131.
Elected sovereign of Thessalonica, ii. 150.
Shares the spoils of the Greek empire, ii. 152.
Quarrels with Baldwin, ii. 159-161.
Invades Greece, ii. 162, ii. 163.
Is slain, ii. 173.

Bosnia conquered by Mahomet II., iii. 174.

Bosra, city of, i. 317.
Expedition against, i. 318.
Disastrous retreat from, i. 319.

Bourbons, Archambault de, death of, ii. 371.

Bordeaux, itinerary from, to Jerusalem, iii. 351 et seq.
Notices of, _ib._ and n.

Bouvines, battle of, ii. 210.

Brienne, John of, city of Damietta assigned to, ii. 251.
His speech against the invasion of Egypt, ii. 254.
Revisits Europe, ii. 264.
Called to the throne of Constantinople, ii. 288.
Death of, ii. 289.

Brittany, duke of, his bravery, ii. 408.

“Brothers of Mercy,” origin of the, iii. 303.

Bulgarians, notices of the, i. 62.
Oppose the progress of the Crusaders, i. 63 et seq.
Their victories over the Latins, ii. 166-171.

Burbotte, a fish of the Nile, ii. 418 n.

Burgundy, duke of, his death, i. 501.

Byzantium. See _Constantinople_.

Cæsarea besieged and captured by Baldwin, king of Jerusalem, i. 277,
i. 278 and n.
Capitulation of, i. 316.
Captured by the Egyptians, iii. 11.

Cairo, caliph of, treats the Christians as allies, i. 16.
Maintains relations with the Crusaders, i. 194.
His object, _ib._
His propositions rejected, i. 195, i. 196.
Sultan of, carries on war against the sultan of Damascus,
ii. 468, ii. 473.
Treaty of peace between, ii. 474.
See _Egypt_.

Caliphs, degeneracy of the, i. 12, i. 13.

Calixtus III., endeavours to stir up a crusade against the Turks,
iii. 165, iii. 169.

Camlets, manufacture of, during the middle ages, iii. 328.

Candia capitulates to the Turks, iii. 235.

Cannon of enormous size used against Constantinople, iii. 148.

Cantacuzenes, emperor of Constantinople, iii. 123.

Capistran, John, preaches a crusade against the Turks, iii. 163.
Death of, iii. 167.

Carac, heroic defence of, i. 453.

Caraffa, Cardinal, commands a crusading fleet, iii. 183.

Cardinals first clothed in scarlet at the council of Lyons, ii. 343.

Carismia captured by Gengiskhan, ii. 320.
The warriors of, commit extensive ravages in Syria, ii. 325.
Defeat the Christian and Mussulman united forces, ii. 326.
Join the sultan of Egypt, and capture Jerusalem, _ib._
Capture Damascus, ii. 332;
but rebelling against the sultan of Cairo, are defeated and
dispersed, _ib._

Carlowitz, treaty of, iii. 236.

Cassia brought from Asia, iii. 336.

Cassin, Mount, i. 21.

Cassius, his dispute with Dolabella, i. 117 n.

Cazan, the Mogul prince, conquests of, iii. 95.
Sends ambassadors to the pope, _ib._
Death of, iii. 97.

Celestine III., Pope, instigates Christendom to undertake the fourth
crusade, ii. 11.

—— IV., Pope, short reign of, ii. 296.

Cemetery for the pilgrims at Jerusalem, i. 10, i. 11.

Cenis, Mount, hospital of, i. 22.

Centius, prefect of Rome, pilgrimage of, i. 25.

Chages, a Mussulman sect, their fanatical devotion, iii. 79.

Chalcis captured by the Crusaders, i. 127.

Chalil elected sultan of Cairo, iii. 76.
Besieges Ptolemaïs, iii. 77.
Captures it, iii. 85;
and takes several other Christian cities, iii. 89.

Charan, Christians defeated at, i. 283.

Charlemagne, magnificent court of, i. 8.
His amicable relations with Aroun al Raschid, i. 9.
Promulgates religion by the sword, iii. 15 n.
Attempts to destroy the feudal system, iii. 275.
Portraiture of, iii. 358 (App.).

Charles IV., emperor of Germany, projects a fresh crusade, iii. 115.

—— V., his violence to the pope, iii. 216.
Policy of, iii. 219.

—— VIII., of Naples, engages in a crusade against the Turks,
iii. 193.
Receives the crown of Naples, iii. 195.
His army disbanded, iii. 196.

——, count of Anjou, crowned by the pope as king of Sicily, iii. 21.
Defeats his rival Conraddin, iii. 31.
Lands at Tunis, iii. 46;
and takes the command of the Crusaders, iii. 48-52.

Charles-le-Bel, of France, iii. 102.
His death, iii. 103 and n.

Charters, use of, adopted, iii. 320.

Charts, geographical, imperfect state of, during the middle ages,
iii. 335.

Châtelain de Coucy, chivalry of, i. 500 and n.

Chaver, vizier of Egypt, i. 387.
Resists the military preparations against Egypt, i. 390 et seq.

Chegger-Eddour, beauty and genius of, ii. 397.
Incites the Mamelukes to revolt, ii. 439.
Elected sultana of Egypt, ii. 445.
Marries Ezz-Eddin, and yields her regal authority, ii. 459.
Assassinates her husband, iii. 3.
Is sacrificed by her slaves, iii. 4.

Children, Jourdain’s letter on the crusade of, in 1212,
iii. 441 (App.).

China conquered by Gengiskhan, ii. 319.

Chio captured by the Turks, iii. 232.

Chirkou, the emir, i. 387.
Invades Egypt, i. 389 et seq.
Death of, i. 397.

Chirkoùh, family of, ii. 3.

Chivalry, spirit of, in favour of the crusades, i. 55.
Origin and history of, iii. 294 et seq.

“Christ lives!” &c., the war-cry of the Christian soldiers,
i. 281 and n.

Christendom, distracted state of, iii. 201, iii. 202, iii. 217.
Fears of, allayed by the victory of Lepanto over the Turks,
iii. 226.
Improving position of, iii. 230, iii. 245.

Christian army at Jerusalem, pious fervour of the, i. 226, i. 227.
Enthusiasm and valour of, ii. 36, ii. 37.

—— religion, its tendency to soften the manners of the Eastern
conquerors, i. 38.
Influence of, on the Crusaders, i. 56.

Christianity, power of the popes augmented by the progress of, i. 39.
On the sanguinary wars in support of, ii. 310; iii. 15 n.
Overthrown at Constantinople by the Turks, iii. 158.
Extended to China, iii. 304.
Its superiority over Mohammedanism, iii. 346, iii. 347.

Christians of the East respected by the northern barbarians, i. 3.
Persecuted by the Mussulmans, i. 7, i. 8, i. 16, i. 17, i. 19,
i. 32, i. 33.
Defeat the Mussulmans, i. 15.
Favoured by the caliphs of Cairo, i. 16.
Driven from Jerusalem, i. 19.
Their rejoicings at the conquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders,
i. 236.
Quit Jerusalem on its capture by Saladin, i. 431.
Their great sufferings, i. 433, ii. 7.
War declared against, by the sultan of Egypt, and Palestine ravaged,
ii. 11.

—— of the West, their early attention directed to the East, i. 3.
Excited to resistance by Archbishop Gerbert, i. 17.
Their various pilgrimages, i. 20 et seq.
Welcomed everywhere, i. 22.
See _Crusades_ and _Crusaders_.

Chronicle of Tours, extract from, iii. 359.

Chronicles, ancient, what is fabulous and what not, i. xxiii.
Of the middle ages, iii. 339-342.

“Chronicon Anglicanum,” by Ralph of Coggershall, iii. 395.

Churches, building of, during the period of the crusades, iii. 331.

Chütes, sect of the, iii. 413.

Cities abandoned by the infidels, i. 201.
Enfranchisement of, in Europe during the crusades, iii. 284-287.

Civilization weakens the spirit of fanaticism, i. xxi.
Increasing spread of, in Europe, iii. 229.
Progress of, during and after the crusades, iii. 251 et seq.

Clement IV. supports the second crusade undertaken by Louis IX.,
iii. 26, iii. 27.
Death of, iii. 36.

—— V., Pope, proclaims a crusade at the council of Vienna, iii. 97.

—— VII., his abortive attempts to arouse Christendom against the
Turks, iii. 215, iii. 218.
Imprisoned by Charles V., iii. 216.

Clergy assume arms in the crusades, i. 55.
Oppose the levying of contributions to the second crusade of Louis
IX., iii. 27.
Ascendancy and wealth of, during the age of the crusades, iii. 301,
iii. 302 et seq.
Their influence in the administration of justice during the middle
ages, iii. 315, iii. 316 and n.

Clermont, council at, held by Urban II., i. 44 et seq.

Cœur, Jacques, biographical notices of, iii. 184 and n.

Colonna, Mark Antony, his triumphal entry into Rome after the battle
of Lepanto, iii. 227.

Comans defeat the Latins, ii. 166.
The barbarous hordes of, ii. 333.

Comet, alarm caused by the sight of one, iii. 166.

Commerce of the East, i. 11.
State of, and progress during the period of the crusades, iii. 326
et seq.

Comnena, Anna, the historian, and daughter of Alexius Comnenus of
Constantinople, i. 41 n., i. 73, i. 75, i. 85, i. 88, i. 89, i. 147
et passim.

Comnenus, John, emperor of Constantinople, attacks Antioch, i. 312.

——, Manuel, his hypocritical policy, i. 347 et seq.

——, Michael-Angelus, gains the kingdom of Epirus, ii. 156.

Conon de Bethune, his speech in reply to the Emperor Alexius, ii. 84.

Conrad III., emperor of Germany, i. 337.
Determines on the second crusade, i. 338.
Leaves Germany at the head of the Crusaders, i. 346.
Arrives at Constantinople, i. 348.
Defeated by the Turks, i. 351, i. 352.
Returns to Constantinople, i. 353.
Arrives at Jerusalem, i. 363.
His heroism before Damascus, i. 366.

——, son of the marquis of Montferrat, and marquis of Tyre, engages
in the holy war, i. 451.
Defends Tyre, and repulses Saladin, i. 452.
Fits out a fleet for the Holy Land, i. 457.
His pretensions to the throne of Jerusalem, i. 470.
Ill-treated by Richard I. of England, i. 491.
Insidiously enters into an alliance with Saladin, i. 493.
Assassination of, i. 494.

——, Bishop, leader of the German crusades, ii. 21, ii. 22.
Assassinated, ii. 34.

Conraddin disputes the crown of Sicily, iii. 22.
Is defeated and executed, iii. 31.

——, sultan of Damascus, death of, ii. 275.

Constantine the Great, the promoter of Christian zeal, i. 1.

——, the Armenian prince, i. 122.

CONSTANTINOPLE besieged by the Saracens, i. 5, i. 9.
Popular traditions of its future liberation by the Latins, i. 9.
Eleven of its emperors put to death, i. 35.
The emperor, Alexius Comnenus, seeks the assistance of the Latins,
i. 44 and n.
The Crusaders arrive at, i. 67.
Excesses committed, i. 73.
Reception of the French leaders, i. 92-95.
Seductions of, i. 95, i. 96.
State of, at the time of the second crusade, i. 347.
Isaac Angelus the emperor of, i. 445.
Contentions between the Greeks and the Latins, i. 446, ii. 114-125.
The emperor dethroned, ii. 62.
Description of, ii. 81.
Besieged by the Crusaders, ii. 82.
Captured, ii. 93.
Conflagration in, ii. 105, 106.
Mourzouffle dethroned, ii. 129.
Lascaris chosen emperor, ii. 130.
Captured and plundered by the Latins, ii. 131-133.
Destruction of its works of art, ii. 137-140.
Relics sought for, ii. 141-143.
Amount of plunder obtained, ii. 144, ii. 145.
Baldwin, count of Flanders, elected emperor, ii. 148.
Decline of the Latin empire in, ii. 288.
John of Brienne called to the throne of, _ib._
Wrested from the Latins by the Greek troops of Michael Palæologus,
iii. 10.
Insurrectionary spirit in, iii. 111, iii. 113, iii. 116, iii. 117.
Tottering state of, when menaced by the Turks, iii. 123 et seq.
Besieged by Mahomet II., iii. 145, iii. 148 et seq.
Sanguinary conflicts, iii. 154, iii. 155.
Capture of, iii. 156.
Destruction of the empire of, iii. 158.
The stores of ancient learning and philosophy brought from,
iii. 338.

Constantinople, treaty between the Crusaders for dividing the city and
empire of, iii. 431 (App.).
Statues of, destroyed by the Crusaders, as related by Nicetas
Choniates, iii. 435 (App.).

Corfu surrenders to the Crusaders, ii. 77.
Fertility of, ii. 78.

Corsairs, a band of, join the Crusaders, i. 118.

—— Flemish, released from imprisonment, i. 188.

Cosroës, king of Persia, i. 3.

Coucy, Sieur de, death of, iii. 129.

Courçon, Cardinal de, preaches the sixth crusade, ii. 206, ii. 207.
Accusations against, ii. 208.
Death of, ii. 240.

Courtenay, Peter of, assassinated, ii. 288.

——, Robert of, his losses and death, ii. 288.

——, family of. See _Josselin_.

Courts of Justice established in Europe during the middle ages,
iii. 317 et seq.

Coxon and Marash, or “mountain of the devil,” i. 126.

Creton, Reimbault, origin of the noble family of, i. 222 n.

Cross, the badge of the Crusaders, i. 52.

—— of Christ found at Jerusalem, i. 230.

CRUSADES, AND CRUSADERS. Introduction to the history of the, i. xix.
No spectacle more imposing in the history of the middle age, _ib._
Disasters of the, i. xx, i. xxi.
“A right regal history”, i. xxii.
On the justice of the, i. xxiii.
Causes of, _ib._
Their effects, i. xxiv.
Their early history, from A.D. 300 to 1095, i. 1 et seq.
—— THE FIRST CRUSADE, A.D. 1095.—The numerous pilgrimages of the
eleventh century the forerunner of the, i. 24-30.
Instigated by Peter the Hermit, i. 42 et seq.
Determined on, and the name first assumed, at the council of
Clermont, i. 52.
Enthusiasm inspired thereby, i. 53 et seq.
Miracles and supernatural wonders alleged to be manifested, i. 57,
i. 81.
Large armies collected, i. 61.
Their departure, _ib._
Opposed by the Hungarians and Bulgarians, i. 63 et seq., i. 71,
i. 72.
Progress of, i. 65.
The Crusaders assail Nissa, _ib._
Their disastrous defeat, i. 66.
Enter Thrace, and reach Constantinople, i. 67.
Elect Gotschalk, a priest, as their general, i. 68.
Their progress, i. 69 et seq.
Rapacity and cruelties perpetrated by the, i. 70 et seq.
Signal defeats and general slaughter of, i. 72 et seq.
Fresh armies sent from various parts of Europe, and the names of
their most distinguished leaders, i. 76-88.
Wage war against the Greeks, i. 90, i. 91.
Wretched situation of the remains of Peter’s army in Bithynia,
i. 96.
Opposed by the Seljoucide Turks in Bithynia, i. 97.
Their various contests, i. 99 et seq.
Their arms and accoutrements, i. 99.
They besiege and capture Nice, i. 100-105.
They enter Phrygia, i. 106;
and defeat the Turks, i. 107-111.
Their sufferings in “burning Phrygia”, i. 113, i. 114.
They arrive at Antiochetta, i. 114.
Dissensions among the leaders, i. 116-118, i. 191.
They reach Mesopotamia, i. 121;
and are everywhere triumphant, i. 126.
Their sufferings in Mount Taurus, _ib._
They enter Syria, and capture Antioch, i. 127.
Their sufferings, i. 133 et seq., i. 159-161.
Their vices and debaucheries, i. 136.
Their valorous deeds, i. 140-142.
The sultan of Persia sends an immense army against them, i. 158.
They are besieged, and exposed to famine and desertion, i. 159-164.
They march out of Antioch, and defeat the invading Saracens with
great slaughter, i. 170-174.
Disputes among the leaders, i. 179 et seq.
Their conquests in Syria, i. 183-186.
Their departure for the Holy Land, i. 187, i. 188.
They besiege Archas, Tortosa &c., i. 189 et seq.
Their reliance on prodigies and visions, i. 191, i. 192.
Their march through Palestine, i. 196 et seq.
The immense losses sustained, i. 197.
Their enthusiasm on the first view of Jerusalem, i. 202.
Besiege the city, i. 205 et seq.;
and take it by storm, i. 221-225.
Godfrey de Bouillon elected king, i. 234.
Great victory over the Egyptian forces on the plain of Ascalon,
i. 240-242.
Many of the leaders return to Europe, i. 246, i. 247.
Fresh bodies of Crusaders leave Europe for the East, i. 249, i. 250.
Their leaders, i. 249, i. 251.
Take the city of Ancyra, _ib._
Defeated with great slaughter by the Turks, i. 252, i. 253.
Reflections on their heroism and exploits, i. 257 et seq.
Kingdom founded by their victories, i. 265 et seq.
Death of their great leader, Godfrey de Bouillon, king of Jerusalem,
i. 274.
His brother Baldwin elected as his successor, on whose family the
sovereignty devolves, i. 275 et seq.
Hostilities carried on against the infidels of Palestine and Egypt,
with alternate success and defeat, i. 277 et seq.
Their conquests and high state of prosperity under Baldwin du Bourg,
i. 306.
Their military orders of knighthood, i. 307-309.
Their calamitous defeat at Edessa by the armies of Zengui and
Noureddin, i. 321-327.
Their consternation and despair, i. 328.

—— THE SECOND CRUSADE, A.D. 1142-1148.—The Christian colonies of
the East being threatened by the Mussulmans, call upon the
princes of Europe to assist them, i. 329.
All Christendom aroused by St. Bernard to the impending dangers of
the Holy Land, i. 139 et seq.
Louis VII., king of France, and Pope Eugenius III., determine on a
second crusade, i. 331.
The multitudes assembled for the occasion, i. 342, i. 343.
The cities of Metz and Ratisbon the general rendezvous, i. 344.
Measures for raising money to defray the expenses, i. 345.
The crusaders depart from Europe, headed by Louis VII. and the
Emperor Conrad, i. 346.
Arrive at Constantinople, i. 348, i. 349.
Treacherous policy of the Greeks, i. 348 et seq.
The German Crusaders defeated near Nice, i. 351, i. 382.
The French Crusaders march through Phrygia, and are defeated by the
Turks, i. 355, i. 356.
Their distress and sufferings, i. 357, i. 359 et seq.
Besiege Damascus, and are defeated, i. 365 et seq.
Insufficient means of defence, i. 372.
General characteristics of, i. 373.
Other Crusaders pursue their operations in Spain and Portugal,
i. 374, i. 375.
Reproaches against St. Bernard for the misfortunes of the Crusaders
of the East, i. 376, i. 377.

—— THE THIRD CRUSADE, A.D. 1148-1188.—Causes of, i. 382 et seq.
The Christian army marches against Egypt, and commences vigorous
hostilities, i. 389 et seq.
The Sicilian Crusaders lay siege to Alexandria, i. 400.
The calamitous war of the Crusaders with Saladin, i. 402, i. 417 et
seq.
Discord amongst them, i. 409 et seq.
They send deputies to the kings of France and England to solicit
aid, i. 411.
They are defeated by Saladin with immense slaughter, and the king of
Jerusalem made prisoner, i. 418-423.
The holy city delivered up to Saladin, after being eighty years in
possession of the Christians, i. 429.
William, archbishop of Tyre, incites the courts of France and
England to renew the holy war, i. 436 et seq.
Richard I. of England, Philip of France, Frederick Barbarossa, and
other illustrious potentates and knights, engage in the holy
war, i. 441 et seq.
The victorious career and death of Barbarossa, i. 448, i. 449.
The Crusaders invade Ptolemaïs under Guy de Lusignan, and are
opposed by Saladin in numerous conflicts, i. 454 et seq.
Arrival of Richard I. of England, Philip of France, and other
illustrious personages, i. 476.
Discord in the camp, and quarrels between the two potentates,
i. 476, i. 477.
Anecdotes of heroic bravery before the walls of Ptolemaïs,
i. 478-480.
Ptolemaïs taken by the Christians, and numbers slain, i. 481.
Manners and characteristics of, i. 483, i. 484.
Richard I. defeats Saladin at the battle of Arsur, i. 487, i. 488;
and takes possession of Jaffa, i. 489.
The Crusaders march upon Jerusalem, i. 492.
Civil dissensions among, i. 493, i. 498.
They ratify a treaty of peace with Saladin, i. 500, i. 501.
Immense losses sustained, i. 501.
General reflections, i. 502.
Advantages to Europe and civilization, i. 506 et seq.

—— THE FOURTH CRUSADE, A.D. 1195-1198.—Retrospective view, ii. 1 et
seq.
Civil commotions of Palestine among the successors of Saladin at the
time of, ii. 4-7.
Instigated by the exhortations of Pope Celestine III. and Henry IV.
of Germany, ii. 11 et seq.
The illustrious men who engage in it, ii. 14, ii. 15.
The archbishop of Mayence and Valeran de Valeran take the command,
and arrive in Palestine, ii. 15.
Engage in hostilities with the Mussulmans, ii. 16 et seq.
Signal defeat of the Saracens before Berytus, and its important
consequences, ii. 19.
Progress of the German Crusaders under Henry IV., ii. 20, ii. 21.
Dissensions among the leaders, ii. 28-30.
Their departure from Palestine, ii. 31.
A truce concluded between the duke de Montfort and the Saracens,
ii. 32.
Causes of the failure of this crusade, and its mischievous
consequences, ii. 33-35.

—— THE FIFTH CRUSADE, A.D. 1198-1204.—General remarks, ii. 36.
Causes which led to it, ii. 38, ii. 39.
Instigated by Pope Innocent III., _ib._
Preaching of Foulkes in its favour, ii. 42, ii. 43.
The illustrious leaders engaged in it, ii. 45-47, ii. 58.
Aided by Venice, ii. 50, ii. 53 n.
Boniface, marquis of Montferrat, elected the commander, ii. 55.
Quarrels between the Venetians and the French, ii. 64 et seq.
Besiege and capture Constantinople, ii. 82-93.
Defeated by the Saracens, ii. 112.
Contests between the Greeks and the Crusaders at Constantinople,
ii. 114 et seq.
The Crusaders capture and plunder the city, ii. 131 et seq.
Their veneration for relics and images, ii. 141.
Baldwin, count of Flanders, elected emperor of Constantinople,
ii. 148.
The conquered lands of the Greek empire distributed among the
leaders, ii. 149, ii. 150.
The Greeks, Bulgarians, &c. take arms against and almost annihilate
them, ii. 165-173.
Reflections on the consequences of the fifth crusade, ii. 179 et
seq.

—— THE SIXTH CRUSADE, A.D. 1200-1215.—Innocent III. stimulates the
Western world to the deliverance of the Holy Land, ii. 191 et
seq.
Hostilities with the Saracens renewed, ii. 195.
50,000 children engage in the crusade, and perish, ii. 202.
The pope assembles the council of Lateran, and issues decrees for
supporting the holy war, ii. 210, ii. 211.
His death, ii. 214.
His successor, Honorius III., urges the crusade, ii. 216.
Indifference of the kings of France and England, _ib._
Enthusiasm of the German states in its favour, ii. 217.
Andrew II., king of Hungary, engages in the holy war, ii. 217,
ii. 224.
The Crusaders arrive in Palestine, ii. 225, ii. 231.
March into Egypt, and capture the city of Damietta, ii. 232-235.
Numbers return to Europe, ii. 237.
Names of illustrious warriors engaged, ii. 238.
Skirmishes on the banks of the Nile, ii. 243.
Capture of Damietta, ii. 249.
Fresh Crusaders arrive from Germany, Milan, Genoa &c., ii. 253.
March against the capital of Egypt, ii. 256.
Their fleet burnt on the Nile, ii. 258.
Capitulate with the Saracens, ii. 260.
Distresses of the Christian army, ii. 261.
Surrender of Damietta, ii. 260.
Preparations of Frederick II., emperor of Germany, to aid the
Crusaders, ii. 264, ii. 267, ii. 269.
He arrives at Ptolemaïs, ii. 275;
and concludes a treaty with the sultan of Cairo, by which he is
confirmed in the sovereignty of Jerusalem, ii. 278.
Gregory IX. determines to renew the holy war, ii. 283.
Council of Tours for promoting the cause of, ii. 287.
Thibault V., king of Navarre, engages in the crusade, ii. 290.
The pope prohibits his departure, ii. 291.
Agitated state of Palestine, and weakness of the Christian power in,
ii. 293, ii. 294.
Richard, duke of Cornwall, joins the Crusaders at Ptolemaïs,
ii. 295;
but soon returns to Italy, and leaves the Christians of Palestine
to themselves, ii. 296.
Reflections on the ill success of this crusade, and the causes which
led to it, ii. 297 et seq.

—— THE SEVENTH CRUSADE, A.D. 1242-1245.—The Tartars of the middle
ages, ii. 312 et seq.
State of Palestine, ii. 326.
Jerusalem captured by the Carismian hordes, and the Christians
slaughtered, _ib._
The united Mussulman and Christian forces defeated by the
Carismians, ii. 330.
Distress of the Christians, ii. 334.
Innocent IV., at the council of Lyons, determines on a new crusade,
ii. 338.
Louis IX. engages to assist, ii. 345-347.
The distinguished individuals of France who enter into it, ii. 347,
ii. 348.
Preparations of Louis IX., ii. 358 et seq.
He arrives at Cyprus, ii. 369.
Lands at Damietta, and defeats the Mohammedan forces, ii. 385.
Advances on Cairo, ii. 399.
Defeats the Egyptians, ii. 403.
His sanguinary contests with the Mamelukes, ii. 405.
Slaughter of the Christians at Mansourah, ii. 408.
Sanguinary contests with the Mussulmans, and their severe losses,
ii. 413-416.
Exposed to disease, pestilence, and famine, ii.et seq.
Louis IX. captured, and his army destroyed, ii. 428 et seq.
30,000 Crusaders massacred, ii. 430;
and numbers taken into slavery, ii. 435.
Louis enters into an abject treaty with the sultan of Cairo,
ii. 438, ii. 447.
The Christian forces evacuate Damietta, ii. 448.
Heavy ransom paid for the liberation of Louis IX., who quits Egypt
for Syria, ii. 450.
A fresh crusade preached in Europe, ii. 464.
Numbers of Christians in Syria and Egypt embrace the Mohammedan
religion, ii. 469.
Hostilities resumed in Palestine, ii. 474.
Louis quits Palestine, and arrives at Paris in 1254, ii. 478,
ii. 480.
General reflections on the crusade, and its unhappy termination,
ii. 481 et seq.
Desolating crusades against the idolaters of Lithuania, Prussia,
&c., ii. 493.

—— THE EIGHTH CRUSADE, A.D. 1255-1270.—Dangerous position of the
Christians of Palestine, iii. 7.
War declared against, iii. 8.
Coolness of Pope Alexander IV. and Clement IV., iii. 8, iii. 20.
The crusade supported only by a few French knights under Eudes, son
of the duke of Burgundy, iii. 9.
The Latin Crusaders lose Constantinople, iii. 10.
Misfortunes of the Christians in Palestine, iii. 11 et seq.
Louis IX. of France undertakes another crusade to the Holy Land, and
after extensive preparations he sails with a powerful armament,
and lands at Tunis, iii. 23-37.
England, Scotland, Spain, Portugal, &c. engage to assist, iii. 29.
Great mortality at Tunis, iii. 41.
Death of Louis IX., iii. 46.
The Crusaders conclude a ten years’ truce with the king of Tunis,
iii. 49.
Their fleet is nearly destroyed by a tempest, iii. 51.
The ancient spirit of the Crusaders suspended, iii. 57.
Prince Edward of England arrives in Palestine, _ib._;
but soon returns, iii. 58.
Causes of the failure of this crusade, iii. 58 et seq.
Gregory X. convokes the council of Lyons, and endeavours, but in
vain, to revive a new crusade, iii. 59.
Severe losses and sanguinary contests of the Christians of Palestine
with the Saracens, iii. 69, iii. 80 et seq.
The slaughter of, at the capture of Ptolemaïs, iii. 85 et seq.
Abandoned by their leaders, iii. 87.
Capture and destruction of all the Christian cities along the coast
of Syria, iii. 89.
Indifference of the Western world to the melancholy fate of the
Christian inhabitants, iii. 90.

—— ATTEMPTED CRUSADES AGAINST THE TURKS, A.D. 1291-1396.—Pope
Nicholas IV. directs his attention to the preaching of another
crusade, iii. 93.
The hopes of the West revived by the successes of the Tartars
against the Mussulmans, iii. 94 et seq.
Proclaimed by Clement V. at the council of Vienna, iii. 97.
Philip, king of France, Edward III. of England, and other
illustrious personages, prepare for a formidable crusade, which
is checked by the death of Pope John XXI., iii. 107, iii. 108.
Persecutions of the Christians of the East in consequence of these
attempts, iii. 109.
Benedict XI. endeavours to stir up a crusade, iii. 110, iii. 111.
Assembly of sovereigns and nobles at Avignon, iii. 113, iii. 114.
They capture and burn Alexandria, iii. 116.
Invade the coast of Barbary, iii. 117.
Miraculous interpositions related, iii. 118.
Treaty with the sultan of Egypt, iii. 119.
A crusade against the Turks determined on, iii. 125.
Its illustrious leaders, iii. 126.
Their fatal contests with Bajazet, iii. 127, iii. 128.
Pope Eugenius exhorts to a fresh crusade, iii. 135;
and large armies are collected, iii. 137.
The Christians enter into a treaty with Amurath, which they violate,
iii. 138;
and undertaking another crusade are defeated and annihilated,
iii. 142.
The Crusaders full of bravery but deficient in qualities, iii. 143.
European crusades terminate with the capture of Constantinople, and
the destruction of the Greek empire by the Ottoman forces, in
1453, iii. 156.

—— DEFENSIVE CRUSADES AGAINST THE TURKS, A.D. 1453-1481, iii. 159.
Meeting of Philip of Burgundy, John Capistran, Æneas Sylvius,
Frederick III. of Germany, Pope Nicholas V., Calixtus III., and
others, to endeavour to stir up a crusade against the Turks,
iii. 159-166.
The crusade preached in France, England, Germany, Spain, and
Portugal, iii. 168.
General assembly at Mantua, convoked by Pius II., iii. 172.
His holiness endeavours to arouse the Christian states against the
victorious career of the Turks, iii. 174 et seq.
Accompanies the crusade, and dies at Ancona, iii. 178, iii. 179.
Paul II. and Sextus V. preach the crusade, iii. 179, iii. 182.
Partial successes of the Crusaders, and the discord attending them,
iii. 183.
The Christians lose all their previous conquests, except Cyprus and
Rhodes, iii. 184.
Charles VIII. of Naples engages in a pretended crusade against the
Turks, iii. 192, iii. 193.
Pope Alexander VI. endeavours in vain to stir up the crusade,
iii. 197.
The crusading spirit becomes enfeebled, iii. 197, iii. 201.
Exertions of Leo X. for its revival, iii. 202 et seq.
Great preparations for, iii. 206.
Curious historical documents respecting, iii. 207.
Clement VII. renounces all further hopes, iii. 218.
Career of the Turks checked by their signal defeat in the Gulf of
Lepanto, iii. 227;
and before the walls of Vienna, iii. 235.
General review of the holy wars, iii. 228.
Their influence on the various classes of society in Europe, as
regards the progress of the arts and of general knowledge, iii.
251 et seq.
Concluding remarks, iii. 345-348.

—— APPENDIX.—Bull of Pope Eugenius in favour of the second crusade,
iii. 370.
Bull of Gregory VIII., iii. 380.
Ralph of Coggershall’s account of the crusade under Richard I.,
iii. 395.
Treaty among the Crusaders for dividing the city and empire of
Constantinople, iii. 431.
Jourdain’s letter on the crusade of children in 1212, iii. 441.
Letter of Innocent III. exhorting the Christians to a fresh crusade,
iii. 447.
List of the great officers who followed St. Louis in his crusade to
Tunis, iii. 465.
Receipts of the troncs in France for the expenses of the crusades,
iii. 473;
and their expenditure, iii. 474 et seq.

Cydnus, the river, i. 449 n.

Cyprus, captured by Richard I. of England, i. 475.
Disputes respecting the sovereignty of, ii. 177.
Arrival of Louis IX. at, ii. 369.
Intemperance of the Crusaders at, ii. 370, ii. 371.
Political distractions of, iii. 184.
Subjected to the Mussulmans, iii. 185.
Taken possession of by the Venetians, _ib._
Captured by the Turks, iii. 225.

——, king of, flies from Ptolemaïs, iii. 79.

——, Peter de Lusignan, king of, engages in a fresh crusade, iii. 313
et seq.

Daimbert, archbishop of Pisa, appointed patriarch of Jerusalem,
i. 269.
His disputes with Baldwin, king of Jerusalem, i. 285, i. 286.
Letters from him and others detailing their victories over the
Saracens, i. 362-364 (App.).

Daïs, a class of Ishmaëlians, iii. 421.

Damascus, principality of, i. 127.
The sultan of, attacks the principality of Tancred, and is defeated
by Godfrey, i. 273.
He defeats the Christians, i. 290, i. 291.
Description and history of, i. 364, i. 365.
Besieged by the Crusaders, who are defeated through treachery,
i. 366 et seq.
Captured by the Carismians, ii. 332.
Sultan of, carries on war against the Egyptians, ii.468, ii. 473.
Treaty of peace between, ii. 474.

Damietta, city of, described, ii. 231, ii. 232.
Tower of, taken by the Crusaders, ii. 232-235.
Sanguinary conflicts before the walls of, ii. 243.
Captured by the Christians, the inhabitants having perished by
famine, ii. 249, ii. 250.
Great wealth of, _ib._
Surrendered to the Saracens, ii. 260.
Besieged and captured by the Crusaders under Louis IX., ii. 380-385.
Delivered up to the Mussulmans by treaty, ii. 448.
Mussulman rejoicings at, and Arab poem on, ii. 451.
Destroyed by the Mussulmans, ii. 485.
Letter from the count of Artois on the taking of, iii. 456 (App.).
Letter from St. Louis respecting, iii. 461 (App.).

Dandolo, the doge of Venice, ii. 49 and n.
Engages to assist the Crusaders, ii. 50, ii. 51.
His address to the Venetians in favour of the Crusaders, ii. 61.
Virtues of, ii. 146.
Death of, ii. 172.
His treaty with the Crusaders for dividing Constantinople and the
empire, iii. 431 (App.).

Daphnusia, expedition against, iii. 9.

Darcum, castle of, i. 495.

Dardanelles, castle of, built by Selim II., iii. 226.

Dargan, vizier of Egypt, defeated and slain, i. 387.

Despotism, the most fragile of human institutions, iii. 120.

Dicet, Ralph, extract from his history, iii. 394.

Dipsada, serpents so called, i. 199 n.

Dogs, a river in “burning Phrygia” discovered by the sagacity of,
i. 114.

Dol, archbishop of, i. 56 n.

Dolabella, his dispute with Cassius, i. 117 n.

Dorylæum, plain of, i. 106.

Ducas, Michael, excites the Christians to take arms against the
infidels, i. 38, i. 39.

Duelling, origin of, in the middle ages, iii. 313.

Durazzo, siege of, i. 284.

Earthquake visits Palestine, and destroys several cities, i. 291,
i. 292.
In Egypt, ii. 188.

East, anarchy of the, i. 4, i. 5.
Subject to the invasions of the wild hordes of Tartary, i. 31.
Subdued by the Turks, i. 32.
Empire of, approaching to its fall, i. 36, i. 37.
State of, at the time of the third crusade, i. 382.

Ecalthai, the Tartar prince, sends an embassy to Louis IX. at Cyprus,
ii. 373.

Eccelino de Romano, papal crusade against, ii. 422.
His death, ii. 493.

Eclipses, alarm caused by, i. 201, i. 351.

Edessa, occupied by the Crusaders, i. 121.
Governed by Baldwin, i. 124.
The principal bulwark of the Christians, i. 125.
Flourishing state of, i. 306.
Captured and destroyed by the infidels, and the Christians
slaughtered, i. 321-327.

——, Matthew of, i. 101.

Edma, daughter of Baldwin, i. 302.

Edward I. of England, his expedition to the Holy Land, and defeat of
the Saracens, iii. 472 (App.).

Edward, Prince, of England, engages in the crusade to the Holy Land,
iii. 29, iii. 32.
Arrives in Syria, and captures Nazareth, iii. 57.
Returns to England, iii. 58.

Egypt, ambassadors from, received at the camp of the Crusaders,
i. 138.
Their offers rejected, i. 139.
Mussulman forces from, under Afdhal, i. 237-242.
The armies of, defeated by Baldwin, king of Jerusalem, i. 278,
i. 286, i. 287, i. 293.
Several of her cities captured, i. 303.
Distracted state of, i. 386 et seq.
Warlike preparations against, i. 389 et seq.
Deposition and death of the caliph, i. 396.
Possessed by Malek-Adel, i. 509.
Famine and plague in, ii. 186, ii. 187.
Terrible earthquake in, ii. 188.
The sultan of, joined by the warriors of Carismia, ii. 326.
Malek-Saleh Negmeddin, the sultan of, ii. 376.
Military and political state of, when invaded by Louis IX., ii. 377,
ii. 378, ii. 379.
The Saracens defeated by Louis, ii. 403.
The Christian forces, in their turn, defeated with great slaughter,
ii. 408, ii. 428.
Almoadam raised to the throne of, ii. 417.
Louis IX. taken prisoner in, ii. 428.
Civil commotions in, ii. 459.
Sultan of, negotiates a treaty of alliance with Venice, iii. 199.
Undertakes an expedition against the Portuguese, _ib._
Memoir of Leibnitz, addressed to Louis XIV., on the conquest of,
iii. 478-493 (App.).

Eleanor of Guienne, the queen of Louis VII., i. 343, i. 346.
Accomplishments of, i. 360.
Her irregular conduct, i. 361, i. 362.
Repudiated by her husband, i. 362.
Results of her divorce, i. 378, i. 472.

Eleuctra, river, venomous serpents of, i. 198.

Elevein, province of, in Wales, iii. 409.

Elidore, miraculous adventure of, iii. 411.

Eloi, St., at the court of Dagobert, i. 10.

Emad-eddin, his conspiracy for dethroning the sultan of Cairo,
ii. 242.

Emaüs, captured by Saladin, i. 427.

Emicio, Count, instigates the Crusaders to the greatest cruelties,
i. 70.

Emirs of Egypt, power of, ii. 444.

Emmaüs, the Crusaders arrive at, i. 201.

England, her resistance to the pretensions of the popes, ii. 303,
ii. 341.
Increase of liberty in, iii. 285.
State of, and changes in, during the age of the crusades, iii. 256
et seq.

Erard de Severy, his heroic death, ii. 410.

Eude, duke of Burgundy, i. 249.
Killed in battle, i. 254 and n.

—— III., death of, ii. 55.

Eugenius III., Pope, warmly urges on the second crusade, i. 331.
His bull in its favour, iii. 370 (App.).

—— IV. receives the submission of the Greek Church, iii. 135.
Exhorts the Christian states to a fresh crusade, iii. 135, iii. 136.

Euphrosyne, wife of the Emperor Alexius, ii. 94.

Europe, aspect of, changed by advancing civilization, i. xxi.
Political and religious distractions of, ii. 195, ii. 196; iii. 131,
iii. 217, iii. 220.
General state of, ii. 304, ii. 305.
Great preparations for undertaking a crusade against the Turks,
iii. 206.
Curious historical documents respecting, iii. 207.
Divisions among the powers of, iii. 214.
Policy of the sovereigns of, iii. 219.
General emulation in, for the cultivation of the arts, iii. 229.

Eutychians, sect of the, i. 4.

Everard de Puysaie, bravery of, at Jerusalem, i. 224.

Evrard des Barres, grand master of the Templars, i. 356.

Ezeroum, kingdom of, i. 97.

Ezz-Eddin Aybek, surnamed _Turcoman_, made governor of Egypt under
Chegger-Eddour, ii. 445.
Marries Chegger-Eddour, and becomes sultan, ii. 459.
Is assassinated by his wife, iii. 3.

Fair held on Mount Calvary, i. 11.

Fakr-eddin, Imaum, anecdote of, iii. 426.

Fak-reddin, the leader of the Egyptian army, ii. 381.
Defeated by Louis IX., ii. 385.
Takes the command of Egypt, ii. 397.
His letter to the Mussulmans, ii. 398.
Is slain in battle, ii. 403.

Falcandus, the Sicilian historian, ii. 20 and n.

Famine in Europe, ii. 56 and n.
In Egypt, ii. 56, ii. 112.
Its frightful effects, ii. 186, ii. 187.

Fanaticism, spirit of, weakened by civilization, i. xxi.
Rage of, i. 481, i. 482.

Fatimite caliphs recapture Jerusalem, i. 16.

Fatimites, dynasty of the, extinguished, i. 396.

Fayel, lady de, i. 503.

Fedaïs, a sect of assassins in Syria, iii. 421.
Curious anecdote of one, iii. 426.

Fergant, the Breton, i. 183.

Feristha, the historian, i. 31.

Feudalism established at Jerusalem, i. 271-273.
Its yoke first shaken off in Lombardy and Italy, iii. 284.
Evils of, iii. 275 et seq.
Its fall, iii. 292, iii. 293.

Flanders, nobility of, engage in the fifth crusade, ii. 47, ii. 83.
Bravery of the soldiers of, ii. 415.

——, count of, his speech to the Christian army at Jerusalem, i. 230.

Florence rejoices at the defeat of the French Crusaders, ii. 453.

Florine, daughter of Eude I., slain, i. 134 and n.

Foulke, a French knight, and his beautiful wife, fate of, i. 181.

——, count of Anjou, and son of Foulque le Rechin, engages in the
holy wars, i. 310.
Marries the daughter of Baldwin du Bourg, _ib._
Crowned king of Jerusalem, i. 311.
His death, i. 316.

Foulque-Nerra, count of Anjou, penitential pilgrimages of, i. 25,
i. 26.
Death of, i. 26.
Miraculous incident relative to, iii. 355 (App.).

Foulkes, curé of Neuilly, preaches in favour of the fifth crusade,
ii. 42-45.
Death of, ii. 57.
Tomb of, _ib._ n.

“Fountain of the Clerks,” London, iii. 384.

France, enthusiasm of, for the Christian crusades against the infidels
of Palestine, i. 53, i. 79.
The Crusaders of, and their most distinguished leaders, i. 87,
i. 88.
Louis IX. engages in the second crusade, i. 337 et seq.
Ruled by the minister Suger, i. 376.
Lamentations of, for the fate of the Crusaders, i. 376, i. 377.

——, placed under the papal interdict, ii. 42.
Political contentions in, ii. 195, ii. 208.
Engages in the sixth crusade, ii. 207.
Louis IX. and several distinguished personages engage in the seventh
crusade, ii. 347, ii. 348.
The nobles of, form a league to resist the exactions of the pope,
ii. 358.
Enthusiasm of, for the seventh crusade, ii. 362, ii. 363, ii. 365.
Improved state of society in, ii. 364.
Innocent IV. takes charge of the kingdom during the absence of Louis
IX., ii. 368.
State of her navy, ii. 369.
Consternation of, on receiving the news of the defeat and capture of
Louis IX. by the Egyptians, ii. 452.

France undertakes a second crusade under Louis IX., assisted by
various powers, iii. 24 et seq.
Invades the coast of Barbary, where Louis dies, iii. 117.
Her troops take possession of Rome, iii. 194.
Political troubles of, iii. 112, iii. 113.
The Crusaders of, defeated and slaughtered by Bajazet, iii. 128.
Consternation of the French, _ib._
Important changes in, during the age of the crusades, iii. 254 et
seq.
Extension of liberty in, iii. 285, iii. 291, iii. 292.
Receipts of the troncs for the expenses of the crusades, iii. 473;
and their expenditure, iii. 474 (App.).
Her treaties with the Ottoman Port, iii. 488 (App.).

Francis I. of France, his letters respecting the crusade against the
Turks, iii. 207.
His injunctions, iii. 209.
Made prisoner at the battle of Pavia, iii. 214.
Policy of, iii. 219.

Francis of Assise, or St. Francis, piety of, ii. 244.
His address to Melik-Kamel, ii. 245.
Founds the religious order of Cordeliers, ii. 246.

Franks, military valour of the, i. 37; ii. 87.
Carry on their hostilities against the infidels, i. 282 et seq.
Attack Constantinople, ii. 87.
Character of the, ii. 174.
See _France_.

Frederick II., emperor of Germany, enters into vows to fight against
the infidels of Palestine, ii. 263.
His extensive preparations, ii. 265.
Sets sail, and returns to Otranto, ii. 270.
His marriage at Rome with the heiress of the king of Jerusalem,
ii. 266.
Acknowledged to be the sovereign of the holy city, ii. 267.
His quarrel with the pope, ii. 270 et seq.
Opposed by the clergy, ii. 280.
Quits Palestine for Europe, ii. 281.
His victories in Lombardy, ii. 281.
Excommunicated by Gregory IX., _ib._
Treaty with his holiness, ii. 282.
Renewed rupture with the pope, ii. 292.
Excommunicated, ii. 292, ii. 341.
His indignation, ii. 344.
Is deposed by the pope, ii. 353.
His protracted contests with, ii. 354 et seq.
Enters into negotiations with Melik-Kamel, ii. 273, ii. 276.
Arrives at Ptolemaïs, ii. 275.
Concludes a treaty, ii. 278.
Death of, ii. 461.
His character, ii. 490.

—— III. of Germany endeavours to stir up a crusade against the
Turks, iii. 164.

——, duke of Swabia, joins the Crusaders, i. 468.
Death of, i. 470.

——, king of the Romans, ii. 209, ii. 217.

Galata, fortress of, captured by the Latins, ii. 87.

Gargan, Mount, i. 21.

Garnier, count de Grai, i. 78.

Gaston de Béarn, i. 88, i. 212.
Dies in Spain, i. 247.
Ordinances of, i. 262 n.

Gaucher de Chatillon, his heroic death, ii. 427.

Gauthier de Brienne lays claim to the kingdom of Sicily, ii. 53,
ii. 178.
Engages in the holy wars, ii. 78.
Captured and put to death by the Carismians, ii. 331, ii. 332.

Gaza, capture of, by Saladin, i. 426.
The Crusaders surprised and cut to pieces at, ii. 295.

Gecko, the serpent of Egypt, i. 199 n.

Gelaleddin, sultan of Carismia, death of, ii. 326.

Gemaleddin, the historian, i. 175 n.

Gengiskhan, the Tartar chief, historical notices and conquests of,
ii. 317 et seq.
Death of, ii. 321.

Genoese, their fleets and victories, i. 40.
They relieve and assist the Crusaders at Antioch, i. 145;
at Jaffa, i. 211;
and at Arsur, i. 277.
Their contests with the Venetians, iii. 2.
They lose the colony of Caffa, iii. 184.

Geoffrey de la Tour, anecdote of, i. 180.

—— de Lusignan, i. 413.
Defeated and made prisoner by Saladin, i. 422.

—— de Rançon, i. 354.
Commits a fatal blunder, i. 355.

Geography, progress of, during the period of the crusades,
iii. 333-335.

Georgians, a warlike people, ii. 265.

Gerard of Avesnes, heroic death of, i. 268.

Géraud, St., Baron d’Aurillac, i. 19 n.

Gerbert, Archbishop, excites resistance to the Saracens, i. 17.

Germany, state of, at the time of the second crusade, i. 337.
Enthusiasm of, in its favour, i. 339.
The Crusaders of, defeated by the Turks, i. 353.
The fourth crusade preached and undertaken by, ii. 14-16.
The Crusaders return from Palestine, ii. 31.
Political and religious contentions in, ii. 209, ii. 353.
Changes in, during the age of the crusades, iii. 258-260.
Extension of liberty in, iii. 284.

Gertrude, wife of Andrew II. of Hungary, ii. 217.

Gervais, count of Tiberias, taken prisoner and put to death, i. 290.

Ghibellines, faction of the, ii. 269.

Gibel, besieged by the Crusaders, i. 189 and n.

Gilbert, a leader of the crusades, i. 356.

Giraffe, its first introduction into Europe, iii. 330.

Giselbert, prophetic vision of, i. 234.

Gisors, assembly convoked at, by the kings of France and England,
i. 436.

Glaber the monk, chronicle of, i. 19, i. 20, i. 23.

Glass, manufacture of, during the middle ages, iii. 329.

Gnostics, sect of the, iii. 495 et seq.

Godfrey de Bouillon, duke of Lorraine, the distinguished leader of the
first crusade, i. xx., xxi., i. 76 and n., i. 77-79.
Wages war against the Greeks, i. 90.
His alliance with Alexis of Constantinople, i. 92.
Defeats the Turks in Phrygia, i. 110, i. 111.
Dangerously wounded by a bear, i. 115.
His quarrel with Bohemond, i. 146, i. 147.
His heroic bravery, i. 172.
Forms an alliance with the emir of Hezas, and defeats the sultan of
Aleppo, i. 182.
Takes Jerusalem by storm, i. 221.
Elected king, i. 234.
Defeats the Egyptian forces on the plain of Ascalon, i. 240-242.
His quarrel with Raymond, i. 244.
Political measures and conquests of, i. 267.
Besieges Arsur, i. 268.
Extraordinary prowess of, i. 269.
He concedes political power to the patriarch of Jerusalem, _ib._
Divides the conquered lands among the companions of his victories,
i. 270.
His legislative code, i. 271-273.
His death and character, i. 274.

—— abbot of Clairvaux, i. 329 n.

Godfrey, bishop of Langres, i. 331.

Gorgoni, valley of, in Phrygia, i. 106 and n.
Battle of, i. 107-111.

Goths, monarchy of the, overturned, i. 5.

Gotschalk, a priest, elected general of the Crusaders, i. 68.
His progress, i. 69 et seq.

Greece, invaded by Boniface, king of Thessalonica, ii. 162, ii. 163.
By the Turks, iii. 122.
Humiliated condition of, iii. 134.
Conquered by Mahomet II., iii. 171.
Her want of energy to resist the Turkish domination, iii. 243.
Her probable emancipation, iii. 245.

Greek, knowledge of, diffused and cultivated in the West, ii. 181 and
n., iii. 204.
Brought from Constantinople, iii. 338.

Greek Church submits to papal authority, iii. 135.

Greek empire, its weakened condition, i. 4, i. 5.
The conquered lands of, distributed among the Crusaders, ii. 149,
ii. 150.
Its approaching fall, iii. 144.
Capture of its capital by Mahomet II., iii. 156.
Destruction of the, iii. 156-158.

Greek fire, i. 5.
Destructive properties and terrific appearance of, ii. 14, ii. 401.
Use of, iii. 29.
Note upon, by Renaudot, iii. 387 (App.).

Greeks, on the rising energies of the, i. 13.
The cool indifference of their prelates, _ib._
They are defeated by the Saracens, i. 14.
Zimisces, their emperor, gains a signal victory, i. 15.
Opposed to the formidable tyranny of the Turks, i. 34, i. 35.
Their moral condition and character, i. 35-37; ii. 100 et seq.,
ii. 174.
Their contests with the Crusaders, and hostility to the Latins,
i. 90, i. 91, i. 93, i. 446, i. 447.
Their perfidious policy to the Crusaders, i. 348 et seq., i. 356.
Are defeated by Barbarossa, i. 448.
Their contentions with the Latins, ii. 103, ii. 113-115.
Their reverence for relics and images, ii. 141.
Rebel against the Latins, ii. 165.
Defeat and massacre them, ii. 168, ii. 169.
Their different historians, ii. 175.
Dispossess the Latins of Constantinople, iii. 10.
See _Constantinople_.

“Green Knight,” distinguished bravery of the, i. 452.

Gregory VII., Pope, his character, i. 39.

—— VIII., bull of, in favour of a crusade against Saladin,
iii. 380 (App.).

—— IX., Pope, character of, ii. 269.
His rage against Frederick II. of Germany, ii. 270, ii. 271.
Hostilities with, ii. 272, ii. 281.
Treaty with, ii. 282.
Determines to renew the holy war, ii. 283.
Quarrels with and excommunicates Frederick, ii. 292.
His death, ii. 296.

—— X. convokes a council at Lyons for reviving a new crusade,
iii. 59.
His death, iii. 66.

——, Cardinal, iii. 52.

—— St., of Nyssen, i. 2.

Grenier, Eustache, regent of Jerusalem, i. 297.

Guelphs, faction of the, ii. 269.

Guibert, Abbé, i. 56 n.

Guichenon, the historian of the house of Savoy, i. 250 n.

Guicher, a French knight, i. 180.

Guienne. See _Eleanor of_.

Guillebard, St., pilgrimage of, i. 24 n.

Guis de Trusselle, i. 83.

Guiscard, Robert, the Norman, i. 84.

Gundechilde, wife of Pancratius, i. 120.

Gunther, the monk, his history of the Greeks, ii. 175, 176.

Guy, abbot of Vaux de Cernay, ii. 64.

—— de Lusignan, i. 403.
His rebellion against Baldwin IV., i. 407.
Selected by Sibylla, his wife, as the sovereign of Jerusalem,
i. 413.
His contentions with Saladin, i. 417 et seq.
Defeated and made prisoner, i. 422.
Released from captivity, i. 453.
Besieges Ptolemaïs, i. 454.
His conflicts with Saladin, i. 458.
Obtains the sovereignty of Cyprus, i. 501.

—— de Malvoisin, bravery of, ii. 408, ii. 415.

—— du Châtel, slain, ii. 426.

—— de Chatillon, slain, ii. 481.

—— of Tremouille, death of, iii. 129.

Guymer, the corsair chief, i. 118.

Haco, king of Norway, engages in the seventh crusade, ii. 361.
His political motives, _ib._

Hafiz, the Persian poet, his description of Jerusalem, i. 202.

Hakim, Caliph, fanatical excesses of, i. 16, i. 17.
Inconstancy of, i. 20.

Halys, defeat of the Crusaders on the banks of the, i. 252.

Haman Eddin, secretary of Saladin, i. 397.

Hammer, M. Raynouard’s notes on his “Mysterium Baphometi Revelatum”,
iii. 494-500.

Hapsburg, family of, their origin, iii. 260.

Harem, city of, taken by the Crusaders, i. 140.

Haroun al Raschid, glorious reign of, i. 8.
His amicable relations with Charlemagne, i. 9.

Hassan, founder of the Ismaëlians, his origin and history, iii. 415 et
seq. (App.).

Hegira, first age of the, i. 5.

Helen, statue of, at Constantinople, ii. 140.

Helena, St., her piety, i. 2.
Pious pilgrimage of, i. 27.

Helian, his speech against the Venetians, iii. 200.

Hemingford, Walter, the chronicler, iii. 472.

Henry II., king of England, urged to join the Crusaders, i. 411.
Determines on renewing the holy war, i. 438.
His quarrels with the king of France, i. 440.
His convocation at the Fountain of the Clerks, London,
iii. 394 (App.).

—— III., ascends the throne of England, ii. 216.
Refuses to assist the Crusaders, ii. 352.
His opposition to the pope and his barons, ii. 394.

—— VI. of Germany engages in the fourth crusade, ii. 13 et seq.
Conquers Naples and Sicily, ii. 20.
Progress of his armies in Palestine, ii. 22 et seq.
Death of, ii. 31;
and character, ii. 34 and n.

—— VIII. of England, policy of, iii. 219.

—— count of Champagne, Palestine ceded to, i. 501.
Accidental death of, ii. 17.

——, landgrave of Thuringia, crowned emperor of Germany, ii. 353

—— of Hainault, his bravery, ii. 169, ii. 170.

Heracle, count de Polignac, i. 88.

Heraclius captures Jerusalem, i. 4.
His interview with Henry II., king of England, i. 411.

Hercules, statue of, at Constantinople, ii. 130.

Heresies of the thirteenth century, ii. 198.
Papal crusade against, ii. 199.

Hezas, emir of, i. 181.
Allies himself with the Crusaders, and defeats the sultan of Aleppo,
i. 182.

Hezelon de Kintzveiler, prophetic vision of, i. 234.

Hildebrand, Pope, pretensions of, i. 39.

History, writers of, i. xxii.
Difficulties of reconciling, i. xxiii.
Progress of, during the period of the crusades, iii. 341.

Holy Land, pilgrimages to the, i. 1-3; iii. 248, iii. 249, iii. 349
et seq.
Letter of Innocent III. exhorting Christians to the aid of, iii. 447
(App.).
See _Palestine_.

—— See, political contentions with the, ii. 208, ii. 209.
Its quarrels with Frederick, emperor of Germany, ii. 270, ii. 281,
ii. 292.
See _Popes_.

—— Sepulchre, veneration for the, i. 1.
Melancholy spectacle of its ruins, i. 20.
Pilgrimages to the, i. 21.
Knights of the, i. 308.

Honorius III., Pope, ii. 215.
Urges the sixth crusade, ii. 216.
Death of, ii. 269.

Horses, four, of bronze, carried to Venice, ii. 182.

Hospitals for pilgrims of the Latin Church, i. 10, i. 16, i. 22,
i. 23.

Hospitallers, possessions and power of, ii. 9.
Their quarrels with the Templars, ii. 9, ii. 10; iii. 2.
Their exploits, iii. 98.
Anecdote of the, iii. 299.

Hugh of Lusignan, king of Cyprus, iii. 111, iii. 112.

——, count of Jaffa, i. 313.
Death of, i. 315.

Humbert II., count of Savoy, departs for the Holy Land, i. 249.
Historical notices of, i. 250.

—— II., dauphin of Viennois, takes the cross for the holy war,
iii. 111.

—— de Romanis, curious document issued by, iii. 60, iii. 61.

Humphrey de Thoron, i. 413.
His pretensions to the throne of Jerusalem, i. 470.

Hungarians, their origin, i. 62.
Oppose the progress of the Crusaders, i. 65 et seq., i. 68, i. 71.
Conquered by the Tartars, ii. 323.

Hungary, political state of, ii. 230.
The Crusaders of, defeated by Bajazet, iii. 128.
Invaded by the Turks, iii. 166, iii. 187.
The Turks defeated, iii. 187.
Invaded by Soliman, iii. 214;
and the Hungarians defeated, iii. 215.
Weakened condition of, iii. 218.
Enters into a treaty of peace with the Turks, _ib._

Hunniades, the Hungarian, a leader of the Crusaders, iii. 137.
Is defeated by Amurath, iii. 142.
Valour of, iii. 166, iii. 167.
His death, iii. 167.

Ibu-Ferat, the Arabian historian, iii. 63, 64 n.

Iconium, city of, i. 116.
Taken by Barbarossa, i. 448.

Ida, countess of Hainault, heroic devotion of, i. 246.

——, margravine of Austria, i. 249.

Iftikhar-Eddanlah, governor of Jerusalem, his hostilities against the
Crusaders, i. 204.

Imamat, rights of the, iii. 414.

Imbert de Beaujeu, constable of France, ii. 402.

Indulgences, sale of, iii. 210.

Industry, progress of, during the period of the crusades, iii. 251,
iii. 328 et seq.

Infidels. See _Mohammedans_, _Saracens_, and _Turks_.

Ingulfus, the monk, his account of the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, i. 30
and n.

Innocent III., the great instigator of the fifth crusade, ii. 38 et
seq.
His quarrel with Philip of France, ii. 42.
His reproaches against the Crusaders at Zara, ii. 73.
His letter, ii. 153.
His efforts to stimulate the Crusaders, ii. 191, ii. 203, ii. 213.
His crusade against the Albigeois, ii. 199 and n.
His political domination, ii. 208, ii. 209.
Assembles the council of Lateran, ii. 210.
His sermon on the occasion, ii. 211.
His death and character, ii. 214, ii. 215.
Letter from, exhorting Christians to the aid of the Holy Laud,
iii. 447 (App.).

—— IV., disturbances under his reign, ii. 296.
Convokes the council of Lyons, ii. 335.
Determines on the seventh crusade, ii. 338..
Excommunicates Frederick, emperor of Germany, ii. 341.
Deposes him, ii. 353.
Protracted contests between them, ii. 354 et seq.
Levies excessive contributions on Europe, ii. 358.
Encourages the preaching of a fresh crusade, ii. 464.
His character, ii. 490, ii. 491.

Inquisition established in Spain, iii. 267.
Its power, iii. 271.

Isaac Angelus, the emperor of Constantinople, i. 445.
Forms an alliance with Saladin, i. 446.
Deposed by Alexius Angelus, ii. 63-65.
Reinstated by the Crusaders, ii. 93.
His imbecility and bigotry, ii. 108.
His death, ii. 119.

—— Comnenus, dispossessed of Cyprus, i. 475.

Isabella of Constantinople, death of, ii. 192.

Isidorus, Cardinal, bravery of, iii. 154.

Islamism. See _Mohammedanism_.

Ismaëlians, the assassins of Syria and Persia, their dangerous
character, i. 304-306; iii. 425.
Account of their origin and history, iii. 414-431 (App.).
Their possessions, iii. 424.
Various sects and classes of, iii. 420, iii. 421, iii. 428.
Their religious dogmas, iii. 429.

Italy, zeal of, awakened in favour of the crusades, i. 84.
War of factions in, ii. 269; iii. 190.
Invaded by Frederick, emperor of Germany, and devastated by civil
war, ii. 293, ii. 296.
State of, and changes during the age of the crusades, iii. 261.
Republics of, iii. 263.
The clergy and nobility lose their influence in the cities,
iii. 284.
Her extensive commerce during the middle ages, iii. 327.
Progress of architecture in, iii. 332.
Literature of Greece introduced into, iii. 338.

“Itinerary” of the early pilgrims from Bordeaux to Jerusalem, composed
A.D. 333, iii. 351 et seq.

Jacob of Hungary instigates the Crusaders, ii. 462.
Is killed, ii. 463.

Jacques d’Avesnes slain, i. 487.

—— de Maillé, his bravery and death, i. 415, i. 416.

Jaffa, entrance of the Genoese fleet into the port of, i. 211.
Captured by Richard I., i. 489.
Taken by the Mussulmans, ii. 17.
The garrison surprised and massacred by the Saracens, ii. 31 and n.
Captured by the sultan of Cairo, iii. 16.
Great expense of fortifying by Louis IX., _ib._ n.
Battle of, iii. 396 (App.).

Jago, the patron saint of Galicia, i. 21.

James, king of Arragon, engages in the holy war, iii. 29, iii. 30.

—— of Vitri preaches the sixth crusade, ii. 207.

Jane, queen of Sicily, i. 475.

Jebusees, Jerusalem the ancient capital of the, i. 203.

Jehoshaphat, valley of, i. 21.

Jem-jem. See _Zizim_.

Jericho, palms of, i. 21.

JERUSALEM, taken by the Crusaders, i. xx.
Retaken by the infidels, _ib._
Reverence for, by the early Christians, i. 2.
A peaceful asylum for them, i. 3.
Captured and profaned by the Fire Worshippers, _ib._
Recaptured by Heraclius, i. 4.
Conquered by the Saracens, i. 6.
Christian cemetery at, i. 10, i. 11.
Retaken by the Fatimite caliphs, i. 16.
Christians driven from, i. 19.
Pious pilgrimages to, i. 21, i. 24, i. 29, i. 30.
Hospitals at, i. 23.
Possessed by the Turks, i. 32.
The Christians commence their march towards, i. 196.
Antiquity and early history of, i. 203.
Description of, i. 204.
The enthusiasm of the Crusaders on the first view of, i. 102.
Besieged, i. 205 et seq.
Indignities heaped upon the Christian inhabitants of, i. 207.
Obstinate defence of, i. 218 et seq.
The Crusaders take it by storm, i. 221-225.
Great slaughter, i. 224, i. 225.
Pious fervour of the Christian army at, i. 226, i. 227.
Wealth found in, i. 229.
Godfrey de Bouillon elected king, i. 234.
Rejoicings of the Christians of the East, and despair of the
Mussulmans at the conquest of, i. 236, i. 237.
State of the kingdom of, at the time of the Crusaders, i. 266.
The various authorities for compiling the history of, i. 267 n.
Visited by numerous pilgrims, i. 269.
Legislative code for governing the kingdom of, i. 271-273.
Death of its king, Godfrey, and election of his brother Baldwin,
i. 274.
Quarrels between Baldwin and the patriarch, i. 285.
Death of Baldwin, i. 294.
Baldwin du Bourg elected his successor, i. 296.
Death of Baldwin du Bourg, i. 310.
Foulque of Anjou crowned king, i. 311.
His death, i. 316.
Baldwin III. ascends the throne of, i. 316.
Threatened by Noureddin, i. 328.
Sinister prognostics respecting, _ib._
Christendom aroused to a second crusade by the impending danger of,
i. 329.
Visited by numerous pilgrims, i. 269.
Death of Baldwin III., i. 384.
Amaury, his brother, elected king, i. 386.
His death, i. 399.
Distracted state of, i. 407 et seq.
Deaths of Baldwin IV. and V., i. 412.
Guy de Lusignan elected king, i. 413.
Civil contests and tottering state of, i. 414 et seq.
The king made prisoner, i. 422.
Besieged by Saladin, i. 426.
Surrender of, i. 429, i. 432.
Prognostics of its fall, i. 435.
Disputes respecting the sovereignty of, i. 470, i. 476, i. 477.
Treaty between Richard I. and Saladin, i. 500.

—— governed by the successors of Saladin, ii. 3 and n.
Political state of, ii. 192, ii. 193.
Frederick, emperor of Germany, acknowledged to be king of, ii. 267,
ii. 278.
Agitations of, ii. 279, ii. 282.
Quarrels with the patriarch, ii. 279.
Religious worship suspended, ii. 280.
Captured by the Carismian hordes, and the Christians slaughtered,
ii. 326, ii. 327.
Possessed by the Egyptians, ii. 331.

Jerusalem, three pretenders to the throne of, iii. 63.
Pilgrimages to, and various treaties for protecting the Christians
of, iii. 249.
A spirit of resignation takes the place of the enthusiasm of the
Crusaders, iii. 250 and n.
“Itinerary” to, from Bordeaux, iii. 351 (App.).
Massacres on the taking of, by the Christians, iii. 359.
Acts of the council of Naplouse for reforming the Christians of,
iii. 367.
Letter from Saladin, detailing his conquest of, iii. 372.
Sermon made at, by Mohammed Ben Zeky, iii. 376.

——, “Assizes of,” i. 271-273.

“Jerusalem delivered” of Tasso, more wonderful than that of the
“Iliad”, i. 258.

Jesus Christ, pretended visions respecting, i. 191.
Alleged miraculous communication to the Crusaders, i. 164, i. 165.
The “true cross” of, found at Jerusalem, i. 230.

Jews, massacred and persecuted by the Crusaders, i. 19, i. 70, i. 341.
Destruction of, at Jerusalem, i. 228.

Joannice, the Tartar leader, ii. 166.
Defeats the Latins, ii. 167, ii. 169.

John, king of England, engages in the sixth crusade, ii. 209.

——, king of France, taken captive at the battle of Poictiers,
iii. 112.
Engages in a fresh crusade, iii. 113, iii. 114.

—— of Austria defeats the Turks at the naval battle of Lepanto,
iii. 226.

—— of Brienne, ii. 193.
Accepts the young queen of Jerusalem in marriage, ii. 194, ii. 195.

Joinville, seneschal de, the historian of the seventh crusade,
ii. 371, et passim.
Bravery of, ii. 410.
Taken prisoner, ii. 429.
Excellence and style of his narration, ii. 481.
Anecdote of, ii. 483.
Declines to join the second crusade undertaken by Louis IX.,
iii. 25.

Jordan, waters of the, i. 21.

Josselin de Courtenay, family of, i. 282.
Defeated and taken prisoner, i. 283.
His release, i. 285.
Notices of, i. 295, i. 296.
As count of Edessa he supports the election of Baldwin du Bourg to
the kingdom of Jerusalem, _ib._
Made prisoner by the Turks, i. 296.
His escape, i. 297.
Death of, i. 320.

——, son of the preceding, succeeds to the county of Edessa, i. 321.
Loses Edessa, i. 324.
Dies a prisoner at Aleppo, i. 379.

—— de Montmorency slain, i. 481.

Josseraut de Brançon, bravery of, ii. 416.
His death, _ib._

Jourdain, M., his letter on the “Assassins” of Syria, iii. 413.
On the crusade of children in 1212, iii. 441.

Judæa, the promised land, i. 1.
See _Palestine_.

Judicial combat in the middle ages, iii. 313.

Julian, emperor, undertakes to rebuild the temple, i. 2.

——, cardinal, preaches in favour of a fresh crusade, iii. 137,
iii. 139.
Is slain, iii. 143.

Julius II., his speech at the council of Lateran, iii. 201.

Jurieu, the Reformer, considers the Turks as auxiliaries to the
Protestants, iii. 246.

Justice, administration of, in Europe during the middle ages, iii. 311
et seq.

Karacoush, minister of Saladin, i. 456 n.

Karaites, khan of the, ii. 318.

Kelaoun, the sultan of Cairo, iii. 65.
Concludes a truce with the Christians of Ptolemaïs, iii. 66.
Enters into treaties with European princes, iii. 67 and n.
Captures and destroys Tripoli, iii. 69.
His death, iii. 76.

Kerbogha, sultan of Mossoul, his siege of Antioch, i. 158 et seq.
His haughty reply to the deputies of the Crusaders, i. 168.
Defeated, i. 173, i. 174.
His magnificent encampment, i. 175.
Defeats the Crusaders, i. 252, i. 253.

Ketboga, the Mogul chief, iii. 6.
Slain, iii. 7.

Khedhrewis, a class of Ismaëlians, iii. 428.

Khothbeh, a sermon made at Jerusalem after its capture by Saladin,
iii. 376.

Kilidj-Arslan, the Turkish chief, i. 97, i. 100, i. 106.
His bravery before Antioch, i. 173.
Defeats the Crusaders, i. 252, i. 253.

Knighthood of learning conferred during the middle ages, iii. 339.

Knights in the army of Peter the Hermit, i. 64 n.

—— of chivalry engage in the crusades, i. 55.
Called “The Champions of God and of Beauty,” _ib._
Spirit and devotedness of the, iii. 295, 296.
Their deference to the fair sex, iii. 297.

Knowledge, state of, during the period of the crusades, iii. 337 et
seq.

Koran, doctrines of the, iii. 346.

Koutouz elected sultan of Egypt, iii. 5.
Assassinated by Bibars, iii. 7.

Ladislas, duke of Bohemia, i. 338.

Ladislaus, king of Poland and Hungary, engages in a fresh crusade,
iii. 137.
Is defeated and slain by Amurath, iii. 142.

Lance, sacred, which pierced the side of the Redeemer, pretended
discovery of the, i. 165, i. 166 and n.
Borne to battle by Raymond d’Agiles, i. 169, i. 170.
Doubts entertained of its miraculous influence, i. 176.
Offerings made to the, i. 192.

Langres, bishop of, his speech against the treachery of the Greeks,
i. 349.

Lascaris chosen emperor of Constantinople, ii. 130.
His address to the Greeks, _ib._
Abandons the city, ii. 131.
Proclaimed emperor at Nice, ii. 156.

Lateran, council of, convoked by Julius II., iii. 201.
By Leo X., iii. 202.
By Pope Innocent III., iii. 210.

Latins of the West, their hostility to the Greeks, and their hatred of
the emperor Alexius, i. 89-92, i. 194.
Their violent disputes, ii. 113-115.
They capture Constantinople, ii. 131.
The Greeks rebel against their domination, ii. 165, ii. 166.
Decline of their empire in Greece, ii. 288.
Dispossessed of Constantinople, iii. 10.
See _Constantinople_ and _Crusaders_.

Laws, the administration of, during the middle ages, iii. 311 et seq.

Lazar-houses, establishment of, iii. 336.

Lazarus, St., order of, historical notices of, iii. 298 and n.

Lebrun, Hugh, count of Angoulême, engages in the crusades, ii. 393.

Leibnitz, his ideas in favour of the crusades, iii. 247.
Memoir of, addressed to Louis XIV. on the conquest of Egypt,
iii. 478-493 (App.).

Leo X., his exertions for reviving a crusade against the Turks,
iii. 202 et seq.
Allows the sale of indulgences, iii. 210.
After the preaching of Luther, the crusades cease to engage his
attention, iii. 213.
The distinguished age of, iii. 229.

—— Sguerre, conquests of, ii. 156.

Leopold, duke of Austria, his treatment by Richard I., i. 484.
His caustic reply to Richard, i. 490.
Detains him a prisoner in Austria, i. 507.

Lepanto, naval battle of, in which the Turks are signally defeated,
iii. 225.
Great rejoicings throughout Christendom, iii. 226, iii. 227.

Leprosy in the West, ii. 308.

Lethal, pilgrimage and fanaticism of, i. 28, 29 and n.

Lewenstein, virgin of, miraculous vision of the, i. 444.

Liberty, progress of, in England, iii. 256-258.
Increasing spirit of, in Europe, during the crusades, iii. 284-292.

Lion, curious anecdote of its docility, i. 180.

Lisbon taken from the Moors, i. 375.

L’Isle-Adam, grand master of the knights of St. John, iii. 213.

Litbert, bishop of Cambray, his pilgrimage to the Holy Land, i. 29.

Literature, state of, during the period of the crusades, iii. 333 et
seq.

Litz, Martin, preaching of, ii. 44, ii. 45 and n.
His possession of relics and images, ii. 141, ii. 142.

Livre Tournois, explanation of, ii. 389.

Lombardy, confederacy in, ii. 269.

Louis II. of Hungary, slain by the Turks, iii. 215.

—— VII. of France, resists the encroachments of the pope, i. 330.
Destroys Vitri, _ib._
Repents, and determines on a crusade against the infidels, i. 331.
His measures for raising money to defray the expenses of the war,
i. 345.
His devotion, i. 346.
Leaves France at the head of the Crusaders, _ib._
Arrives at Constantinople, i. 349.
Marches through Phrygia, i. 353;
and defeats the Turks, _ib._
Is surprised and defeated, i. 355.
Report of his death, _ib._
His piety and determination, i. 357, i. 358.
Arrives at Antioch, with a part of his army, i. 360.
Repudiates his queen, Eleanor of Guienne, i. 362.
Leaves Antioch, and proceeds to Jerusalem, i. 363.
His unsuccessful military operations, i. 366 et seq.
Leaves Palestine, and returns to Europe, i. 378.
The unfortunate results of his crusade, i. 378 et seq.
He revokes his promise of revisiting the Holy Land, i. 379.

—— IX. (or St. Louis), his recovery from a dangerous malady, ii. 345
and n.
He determines on prosecuting a seventh crusade against the infidels
of the Holy Land, ii. 346 et seq.
Makes extensive preparations, ii. 358 et seq.
Quits France, ii. 368;
and arrives at Cyprus, ii. 369.
Conciliates the Christian litigants, ii. 371, ii. 372.
Receives an embassy from the Tartar prince Ecalthai, ii. 373.
Arrives before Damietta, ii. 379.
His address, ii. 380.
His speech to the Crusaders, ii. 381.
Defeats the Mohammedan forces, ii. 382.
Captures Damietta, ii. 385.
His severe loss at the battle of Monsurah, ii. 408.
His continued contests with the Egyptians, ii. 413 et seq.
The sufferings of his army, ii. 413-422.
He attempts to regain Damietta, but is defeated, and surrenders as a
prisoner, ii. 428.
Religious resignation of, ii. 433.
Enters into a treaty with Almoadan for his ransom, ii. 438, ii. 447.
Departs from Egypt, ii. 450.
Consternation throughout France at his capture, ii. 452.
His arrival at Ptolemaïs, ii. 453.
Deliberations and speeches of his knights respecting their future
operations, ii. 455, ii. 456.
His negotiations with the Mohammedans of Egypt and Damascus,
ii. 459.
Singular message to, from the “Old Man of the Mountain”, ii. 467.
He fortifies the cities of Palestine, ii. 470, ii. 474, ii. 476.
Negotiates a treaty with the emirs of Egypt, ii. 472.
Treaty violated, and hostilities resumed against him, ii. 474.
Anecdotes of his pious devotedness, ii. 476, ii. 479.
Quits Palestine, and arrives at Paris, ii. 478, ii. 480.
Reflections on his character and misfortunes, ii. 484 et seq.
He determines upon another crusade to the Holy Land, iii. 23,
iii. 24.
The illustrious names who take the cross in his support, iii. 25.
His extensive preparations, iii. 27 et seq.
His expedition to the coast of Tunis, iii. 38.
His illness and fervent devotion, iii. 42-45.
His death, iii. 46.
His virtues and piety, iii. 54-56.
Letter of, on his captivity and deliverance, iii. 458 (App.).
List of the great officers who followed him to Tunis, iii. 465.
His death-bed instructions, iii. 467.

Louis XIV. joins a Christian confederation against the Turks,
iii. 233, iii. 234.
Memoir of Leibnitz, addressed to, on the conquest of Egypt,
iii. 478-493 (App.).

——, count of Chartres, engages in the fifth crusade, ii. 45.

Loyola, Ignatius, his pilgrimage to the Holy Land, iii. 248.

Lulli, Raymond, preaches a fresh crusade, iii. 103-106.

Lusignan. See _Guy de_.

Luther, his preaching against indulgences and the crusades, iii. 211.
Its important consequences, iii. 212.
He preaches against the Turks, 220; but denounces a Christian
crusade, iii. 221-223.

Lyons, council of, ii. 335.
Determines on the seventh crusade, and excommunicates Frederick II.
of Germany, ii. 338, ii. 341.
Council at, convoked by Gregory X., for reviving a new crusade,
iii. 59.

Maarah, siege and capture of, i. 183-186.

Machines used at the siege of Jerusalem, i. 217-219.

Magi, worship of the, i. 4.
Annihilated by Mohammedanism, i. 5.

Magicians among the Saracens, i. 220 and n.

Magistracy in France during the middle ages, iii. 319.

Mahomet, frenzy of his followers, i. xx.
Spread of his religion, i. 4, i. 5.
The empire of, i. 12.
New sectaries of, _ib._
Principles of the religion of, i. 382.
See _Mohammedans_.

—— II., his accession to the Ottoman throne, iii. 143, iii. 144.
His powerful empire, iii. 144.
Besieges Constantinople, iii. 148 et seq.
His fleet defeated, iii. 149.
His extraordinary land fleet, iii. 150.
Captures the city, iii. 156.
Defeated at Belgrade, iii. 167.
His extended conquests, iii. 171, iii. 174, iii. 180, iii. 184.
His negotiations with Pius II., iii. 174.
He swears to annihilate Christianity, iii. 180, iii. 181.
Invades Hungary and different parts of Europe simultaneously,
iii. 187-189.
Defeated by the Hungarians, _ib._
Death of, iii. 191.
Divisions in his family, _ib._

Mainfroy, of the house of Swabia, slain, iii. 21.

Malek-Adel, brother of Saladin, i. 491.
Takes possession of Egypt, &c., i. 509.
His ambitious policy, ii. 5, ii. 71 n.
Opposes the Crusaders, ii. 16.
Defeated by the Christians before Berytus, ii. 18, ii. 19.
Renews hostilities, ii. 195.
The throne of Syria abdicated by, ii. 226.
His death and character, ii. 236.

Malek Saleh Negmeddin, sultan of Egypt, extent of his conquests,
ii. 376, ii. 377.
His preparations for resisting the Crusaders under Louis IX.,
ii. 377.

Malek-Scha, conquests of, i. 32.
Court of, i. 34.

Malleville, assailed by the Crusaders, i. 64.

Malta, knights of St. John transferred to, iii. 214.
Heroic defence of, against the Turks, iii. 224.

Mamelukes, first established by Saladin, i. 402.
Their bravery, i. 459.
Their treachery, ii. 398.
Defeat the Crusaders, ii. 405.
Revolt against Almoadan, ii. 439, ii. 440.
The Syrians refuse to acknowledge their authority, ii. 459.
Their rise and fall, ii. 486.
They defeat and expel the Tartars from Palestine, iii. 8.
Their victories against the Christians, iii. 11 et seq.
Capture Tripoli, iii. 69;
Ptolemaïs, iii. 85;
and several other Christian cities, iii. 89.

Mamouh, sultan of Persia, uncalculating policy of, in encouraging the
Turks, i. 31.

Mansourah, sanguinary battle at, ii. 404 and n.
And death of many illustrious Crusaders, ii. 408.

Mantua, general assembly at, to incite resistance to the Turks,
iii. 172.

Manuel, emperor of Constantinople, visits France, iii. 130.

Manufactures, progress of, during the middle ages, iii. 328 et seq.

Marcel, treachery of, ii. 428.

Margarit, Admiral, sent to the defence of Tripoli, i. 453.

Margat, fort of, captured by the Mussulmans, iii. 48.

Marguerite of Flanders, wife of Baldwin, death of, ii. 155.

—— of Provence, wife of Louis IX., ii. 369.
Her agonizing situation during the misfortunes of Louis, ii. 432.

“Market of the Franks” at Jerusalem, i. 11.

Markets of the Franks established, i. 16.

Maronites, sect of, i. 4.

Martel, Charles, victories of, i. 6.

Matthew of Edessa, the historian, i. 14 n., i. 147 n. et passim.

Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary, iii. 187.

Maudoud, prince of Mossoul, assassinated, i. 292.

Maximilian, emperor of Germany, letters of, iii. 202.

Mecca, temple of, destroyed and rebuilt, iii. 226.

Medicine, state of, and progress during the period of the crusades,
iii. 335, iii. 336.

Mehallah, canal of, fatal to the Crusaders, ii. 420, ii. 425.

Melik-Kamel, the sultan of Cairo, ii. 226.
Conspiracy against, ii. 242.
His speech respecting the Crusaders, ii. 260.
Signs a treaty of peace, _ib._
Enters into negotiations with Frederick II., emperor of Germany,
ii. 273, ii. 276.
Concludes a treaty, ii. 278.
Death of, ii. 294.
Political contests thence arising, _ib._

Melisende, queen of Jerusalem, i. 313, i. 315.

Memphis, solitude of, i. 21.

Mercœur, duke of, defeats the Turks, iii. 231, iii. 232.

Mersbourg, assailed by the Crusaders, i. 70, i. 71.
Described, i. 70 n.

Merwan II., cruelty of, i. 8.

Mesopotamia, entered by the Crusaders, i. 121.

Mezerai, the historian, ii. 484.

Michaud, M. Jourdain’s letters to, iii. 413, iii. 441.

Middle Age, reflections on the state of society from 1571 to 1685,
iii. 251 et seq.

Military orders of Christendom, i. 307-309.

Minerva, statue of, at Constantinople, destroyed, ii. 108.

Minieh, town of, ii. 427.

Miracles, pretended, i. 164, i. 165.

Modhaffer Abyverdy, his elegy on the taking of Jerusalem, i. 236.

Moguls, sovereign of the, his conquests, ii. 317 et seq.
Historical notices of, ii. 487.
They capture Bagdad, iii. 4.
Their warlike operations against the Mussulmans, iii. 5.
Take the principal cities of Syria, _ib._
General terror of the, iii. 6.
History and conquests of, under Tamerlane, iii. 132, iii. 133.
See _Tartars_.

Mohammedanism, victorious career of, i. 33 et seq.
Not a religion of the sword, iii. 15 n.
Triumph of, under Mahomet II., iii. 158.
Its inferiority to Christianity, iii. 346.
The two leading sects of, iii. 413.
Evil principles of, iii. 241.

Mohammedans, conquests of the, i. 5 et seq.
Contests with the Crusaders before Antioch, i. 158 et seq.
Manners and characteristics of the, i. 183.
The cities of Palestine abandoned by the, i. 209.
Number slain at Jerusalem, i. 228.
Their despair on the conquest of Jerusalem by the Christians,
i. 236, i. 237.
Sustain various defeats by Baldwin, king of Jerusalem, i. 277.
Their continued hostilities with the Christians in Palestine, Egypt,
&c., i. 278-328.
Their prayers and exhortations against the Crusaders, i. 474.
Arouse themselves against the Crusaders, ii. 240.
Panic amongst the, ii. 242.
Propose conditions of peace, ii. 247, ii. 257.
Their alarm, ii. 251, ii. 252.
They burn the fleet of the Crusaders on the Nile, ii. 258;
and compel them to capitulate, ii. 260.
Defeated by the Carismians, ii. 330.
Political quarrel among the, ii. 376.
See _Saracens_ and _Turks_.

—— of Tunis encounter the Crusaders, iii. 40.

Mohyeddin Almoury, the imaum, iii. 63, iii. 64.

Molahed, epithet of, explained, iii. 419.

Monasteries founded during the middle ages, i. 22, iii. 303, iii. 304.

Montes Jovis, monastery of, i. 22.

Montferrat, marquis of, i. 338.
Visits the Holy Land, i. 452.

Montfort, Philip de, pays the ransom for Louis IX., iii. 450.

Moors, expelled from Lisbon, i. 375.
Their contests and defeats in Spain, ii. 201, ii. 268.
Their expulsion, iii. 243, iii. 266, iii. 375.

Morosini, Thomas, elected patriarch of Constantinople, ii. 151.

Moslems. See _Turks_.

Mossoul, sultan of, attacks and defeats the Christians, i. 290,
i. 291.
See _Kerbogha_.

Mourzoufle, of Constantinople, stirs up insurrection against the
Latins, ii. 111, ii. 112.
Insidious policy of, ii. 118.
Destroys Alexius, and ascends the throne, _ib._
Treachery of, ii. 119.
His contests with the Latins, ii. 119-128.
Dethroned, ii. 129.
Captured and executed, ii. 157.

Music, rise of, in Italy, iii. 333.

Mussulmans. See _Mohammedans_, &c.

“Mysterium Baphometi Revelatum,” Raynouard’s notes upon, iii. 494-500.

Mythology during the period of the crusades, iii. 342.

Naccaire, the name of a kettledrum, ii. 381.

Naples, conquered by Henry VI., ii. 20.
Invaded by the Turks, ii. 189.
Agitations of, ii. 192, ii. 193.
State of, during the age of the crusades, iii. 263.

Naplouse, city of, pillaged, i. 291.
Decrees of the council of, i. 311 and n.
Acts of the council for reforming the Christians of Palestine,
iii. 367.

Nasr-allah, vizier of the sultan Afdhal, ii. 4 and n.

Natural history, knowledge of, increased during the crusades,
iii. 330.

Navigation, progress of, during and after the period of the crusades,
iii. 251, iii. 321 et seq.
Codes of maritime rights established, iii. 324.

Nazareth, bishop of, miracle imputed to, i. 319.
Captured by the Crusaders, iii. 57.

Negmeddin, his negotiations with Louis IX., ii. 388.
Death of, ii. 397.

Nestorians, sect of, i. 4.

Neufmontier, abbey of, founded by Peter the Hermit, i. 247 n.

Nevers, count de, i. 341, i. 342.

Nezzarians, a sect of Ismaëlians, iii. 420.

Nice, the capital of Bithynia, besieged, i. 99-105.
Sultan of, desolates the country, i. 112.

Nicea, possessed by the Mussulmans, i. 33.
The sultan of, defeats the Crusaders, i. 75.

Nicephoras Phocas heads the Greeks, and captures Antioch, i. 13.
His assassination, i. 14, i. 36.

Nicetas, his account of the sacking of Constantinople by the Latins,
ii. 133-137.
His history of the contests between the Greeks and the Latins,
ii. 174, ii. 175.
Fragment from, iii. 435.

Nicholas IV., Pope, attempts to revive a fresh crusade against the
East, iii. 93.

Nicopolis, the modern name of Emmaüs, i. 201.

Nile, battles on the banks of the, ii. 243.
Mouth of, filled with heaps of stones, ii. 485.

Nissa assailed by the Crusaders, i. 65, i. 66.

Nobility, historical notices of, iii. 278 et seq.

Normans join in the crusades, i. 82.

Northampton, a council held at, for aiding the second crusade of Louis
IX., iii. 29.

Nosaïris, sect of the, iii. 428.

Noureddin, son of Zenguis, and sultan of Aleppo and Damascus, defeats
and slaughters the Christians of Edessa, i. 326, i. 327.
Threatens Jerusalem, i. 328.
Extensive power of, i. 361, i. 396.
His conquests, i. 379.
Heroic character and benevolent sentiments of, i. 383-385.
His warlike preparations against Egypt, i. 389.
Conquers Egypt, and deposes the caliph, i. 396.
His death, i. 399.

Novagero, his eulogies on Leo X., iii. 204.

Octaï, khan of the Tartars, ii. 321.
His extensive conquests, ii. 322.

——, chief of the Mamelukes, anecdote of, ii. 442.

Oderic Vital, the chronicler, i. 41 n., i. 82, i. 250 n. et passim.

Odo, bishop of Bayeux, i. 83.

Odoacer, marquis of Syria, i. 338.

“Old Man of the Mountain,” i. 304-306.
His singular message to Louis IX., ii. 467.
Visit to the court of, ii. 468.
Origin and history of his party, iii. 413 et seq. (App.).
Curious letter of, iii. 434.

Oleron, rolls of, established, iii. 324.

Olives, Mount of, i. 21, i. 214.

Olivia, bishop of Paderborn, ii. 233 and n.

Omar, Caliph, captures Jerusalem, i. 6.
Mosque of, wealth found in the, i. 224, i. 229.

Ommiades, dynasty of the, i. 8; iii. 414.

Ordeal by fire, i. 193.

Ordeals during the middle ages, iii. 312.

Ores, explanation of, ii. 404.

Oriflamme, or royal standard, i. 354.

Orpin, count of Bourges, i. 249.

Ortock, the Turkish general, conquests of, i. 33.

Otho of Savoy, excommunicated, ii. 209.
Makes war against the pope, ii. 209.

Otranto, captured by the Turks, iii. 189.
Abandoned, iii. 191.

Otto of Frisingen, i. 352.

Ottoman Port, her treaties with France, iii. 488.

Ottoman empire, its origin and history, iii. 120 et seq.

Ottomans, defeated by Tamerlane the Tartar, iii. 132, iii. 133.
Reconquer the provinces overrun by Tamerlane, iii. 133, iii. 134.
Their power under Mahomet II., iii. 144.
Capture Constantinople, and overturn the Greek empire, iii. 156.
See _Turks_.

Oulagon, commander of the Moguls, iii. 4, 6.

Outtreman, the Jesuit, i. 41 n.

Ozellis, valley of, in Phrygia, i. 106 and n.
Battle of, i. 107-111.

Paganism annihilated by Mohammedanism, i. 5.
State of in the thirteenth century, i. 219; ii. 218-223.

Paladins, the order of, iii. 294.

Palæologus, Michael, his troops recapture Constantinople, iii. 10.

——, John, emperor of Constantinople, his vacillating policy,
iii. 123.

——, Constantine, character of, iii. 144, iii. 156 n.
Prepares for the defence of Constantinople, and appeals in vain to
western Europe for aid, iii. 145.
His great efforts, iii. 151, iii. 154.
His death, iii. 156.

——, Andrew, sells his claims to the empire of the East, iii. 194.

PALESTINE, visited by the early Christians, i. 2.
The Crusaders march through the country of, i. 196 et seq.
State of, at the period of the crusades, i. 265, i. 266.
Ravaged by the infidels, devastated by locusts, and visited by an
earthquake, i. 291.
Continued hostilities in, i. 292-328.
Victories of Saladin in, i. 425.
Its capital, Jerusalem, taken from the Christians, i. 429.
Ceded to Henry, count of Champagne, i. 501.

——, governed by the successors of Saladin, ii. 3 n.
Civil contests in, previous to the fourth crusade, ii. 4-7.
Agitated and discordant state of, ii. 4-7, ii. 189, ii. 192,
ii. 194, ii. 293, ii. 294.
Earthquake and famine in, 189. State of, at the time of the sixth
crusade, ii. 225.
Oppressions of the Christians of, ii. 265.
No longer considered a place of blessedness, but of exile, ii. 300,
ii. 301.
Subdued by the Carismians and Egyptians, ii. 330.
Distress of the Christians of, ii. 334.
Cities of, fortified by Louis IX., ii. 470, ii. 474.

——, on the Christian cities fortified by Louis IX., iii. 1.
Quarrels among the Christians of, iii. 2, iii. 3.
Among the Saracens, iii. 3.
Alarm of the Christians at the power of the Moguls, iii. 6.
Increasing difficulties of, iii. 11 et seq.
The Christians defeated, and the country laid waste, _ib._
Divisions among the Christians, and conquests of the Mamelukes,
iii. 69, iii. 85, iii. 89.
Destruction of all the Christian cities along the coast of, iii. 89.
Renewed persecutions of the Christians, iii. 109.
Subjected to the absolute domination of the Turks, iii. 202.
Acts of the council of Naplouse, for reforming the Christians in,
iii. 367 (App.).

Pancratius, an Armenian prince, joins the Crusaders, i. 120.

Paphlagouin, the Crusaders pass through, i. 251.

Papyrus Masson, i. 250.

Paris, council of, held in 1188; decree of the, for providing Saladin
tenths, iii. 384 (App.).

“Pastors,” the name given to certain Crusaders, ii. 462.

Paul II., Pope, instigates the crusade against the Turks, iii. 179.
Death of, iii. 182.

Paultre, M., memoir of, on the Forest of Saron, iii. 388 (App.).

Pelagius, Cardinal, instigates the prosecution of the sixth crusade,
and proceeds to Egypt, ii. 239.
His obstinacy in carrying on the war in Egypt, ii. 256, ii. 257.
Negotiates for peace, ii. 259.

Persia, empire of, torn by intestine wars, i. 4.
Sends an immense army against the Crusaders, i. 157, i. 158;
which marches against the Turks, iii. 182;
and is destroyed, iii. 183.
Sends an embassy to the princes of the West, iii. 231.

Peter the Hermit, character of, i. 40.
His pilgrimage to Jerusalem, i. 41, i. 42.
His different appellations, i. 41 n.
His visit to Pope Urban II., i. 42.
His interview with the patriarch of Jerusalem, and his enthusiasm,
_ib._
Traverses all Europe to arouse the Christians against the infidels,
i. 43.
Attends the council of Clermont, i. 48.
His inciting speech, _ib._
Chosen general of the crusade, i. 61.
Introduced to Alexis Comnenus, at Constantinople, i. 68.
Loses his authority, i. 75.
Wretched situation of the remains of Peter’s army, i. 96.
Deserts the camp of the Crusaders, and is retaken, i. 135.
Sent to treat with the Saracen leaders, i. 165.
His speech, _ib._
Arouses the enthusiasm of the Christian army by his address, i. 215.
Returns to his own country after the conquest of Jerusalem, i. 247.
Death of, _ib._ n.

—— of Lusignan, king of Cyprus, proposes a fresh crusade, iii. 113
et seq.

—— of Blois preaches the crusade, i. 442 and n.

—— de Salviac, notices of, i. 246.

Petrarch, an apostle of the holy war, iii. 110.

Pharamia, captured by Baldwin, i. 293.

Pharescour, insurrection of the Mamelukes at, ii. 440.

Philip I., king of France, excommunicated, i. 47.
State of his kingdom, i. 79, i. 80.

—— Augustus, king of France, determines on renewing the holy war,
i. 438.
His quarrels with the king of England, i. 440.
Arrives at Palestine, i. 473.
Quits Palestine, and returns to France, i. 485.
His quarrel with Pope Innocent III., ii. 42.
Largely contributes to the sixth crusade, ii. 207.
Death of, ii. 264.

—— III., son of Louis IX., iii. 42, iii. 47.
Returns to France, with the dead bodies of his father, wife, and
brother, iii. 53.

—— le Bel of France, takes the cross, iii. 100.
His death, _ib._

—— le Long of France, iii. 100.
His death, iii. 102.

——, duke of Burgundy, assembles his nobility at Lille, iii. 169.
Curious festival held, and the enthusiasm of his nobility in favour
of a fresh crusade, iii. 160, iii. 161.

—— of Swabia, his address to the French barons, ii. 68.

——, count of Flanders, i. 402. Slain, i. 481.

—— of Valois convokes an assembly at Paris for reviving a fresh
crusade, iii. 107.
Compelled to renounce his intentions, iii. 110.
Death of, iii. 112.

Philosophy of the ancients brought from Constantinople, iii. 338.

Phirous betrays the city of Antioch to the Crusaders, i. 147-157.
Murders his brother, i. 153.

Phœnicia, the Crusaders pass through, i. 196.
Richness of, _ib._

Phrygia, the country desolated by the sultan of Nice, i. 112.

Physicians, ignorance of, during the middle ages, iii. 336.

Pierre de Dreux engages in the holy war, ii. 216.

Pigeons, letters conveyed by, i. 182 and n.

Pilgrimages, ardour for, to the Holy Land, i. 1, 2.
Interrupted by the Goths, &c., i. 3.
Undertaken by St. Arculphus, St. Antoninus, and Peter the Hermit,
i. 7.
By St. Bernard, i. 10.
During the eleventh century, i. 20 et seq.
They assume the character of an armed crusade, i. 54.
Number of, on the termination of the crusades, iii. 248, iii. 349 et
seq. (App.).

Pilgrimages of penance by distinguished personages to the Holy Land,
&c., i. 24-31.

Pilgrims, hospitals built for the reception of, i. 22, 23.
Kind treatment of, i. 23.
Arrival of, at Jerusalem, i. 269.
Buy off their vows, ii. 298.

Pisans, conquests of the, i. 40.
Aid the Crusaders by their fleets, i. 145, i. 286.

Pius II., Pope, exhorts the Christian states to a crusade against the
Turks, iii. 172.
Convokes an assembly at Mantua, _ib._
His negotiations with Mahomet II., iii. 173, iii. 174.
His zealous endeavours to resist the advance of the Turks, iii. 174
et seq.
Engages in the crusade, iii. 178;
and dies at Ancona, iii. 179.

Plague in Egypt, ii. 187.

Plaisance, papal council at, i. 44.

Poictiers, count of, his capture and release, ii. 415, ii. 416.

Poitevins, their severe conflicts with the Saracens, ii. 415, ii. 416.

Pons, abbot of Vézelai, preaches in favour of the second crusade,
i. 335.

—— de Balasu, death and character of, i. 190.

Popedom, contests for the, i. 84; iii. 125.

Popelicains, religious principles of the, ii. 197.

Popes, increase of their power during the progress of Christianity,
i. 39.
Their political pretensions and quarrels, ii. 302, ii. 303, ii. 306,
ii. 342, ii. 353; iii. 20, iii. 268.
Their domination during the age of the crusades, iii. 268 et seq.
See _Rome_.

Portugal submits to Alphonso, i. 375.
The sultan of Egypt’s expedition against, iii. 199.

Pourcelet, Wm., his heroic self-sacrifice, i. 489.

Prester John, notices of, ii. 318.

Printing, instrumental in preserving the literary treasures of the
East, iii. 338.

Prodigies, miraculous, seen at Antioch, i. 173, i. 183.

Provençalex, origin of the name, i. 94 n.

Provisions, scarcity and dearness of, i. 134 and n.

Prudhommes, maritime code drawn up by the, iii. 324.

Prussia, paganism of, in the thirteenth century, ii. 218.
Manners and customs of the inhabitants, ii. 219, ii. 220.
Their religious belief, and festivals, ii. 221, ii. 222.
Subdued and converted by the Holy See, ii. 223.
Reflections on the papal crusade against, ii. 309.
Funeral ceremonies of, iii. 455 (App.).

Ptolemaïs, the Crusaders march through the country of, i. 199.
Deceit of the emir of, i. 200.
Besieged and captured by Baldwin, i. 286.
Captured by Saladin, i. 425.
Description of, i. 454; iii. 70, iii. 71.
Besieged by Guy de Lusignan, who is opposed by Saladin, i. 454 et
seq.
Retaken by the Christians, i. 481.
Hostilities at, commenced by the Christians, ii. 16.
Possessed by John of Brienne, ii. 196.
Arrival of the sixth crusade at, ii. 224;
of Frederick of Germany, ii. 275.
The commercial capital of Palestine, iii. 1.
Discords between the Venetian and Genoese residents of, iii. 2.
Quarrels between the Mussulmans and the Christians of, iii. 73,
iii. 74.
Besieged by the sultan of Cairo, iii. 76 et seq.
Dissensions among the citizens, iii. 80.
After many sanguinary contests the city is captured and destroyed,
iii. 85 et seq.

Puy, bishop of, named as the apostolic legate, i. 53.
Death of, i. 179.

Puyset, castle of, i. 313 n.

Quinze-Vingts, hospital of, ii. 487.

Radnor, the lord of, anecdote of, iii. 408 (App.).

Ralph of Coggershall, his “Chronicon Anglicanum,” iii. 395.

Ramla, city of, besieged and captured by the Saracens, i. 280.

Raoul de Caen, the historian, i. 86 n., i. 163, i. 192, et passim.

—— de Coucy, slain, ii. 408.

Ravendel, capture of, i. 121.

Raymond, count of Thoulouse, engages in the first crusade, i. 52.
Marches at the head of 100,000 Crusaders, i. 88.
Defeats the Turks in Phrygia, i. 111.
Miraculous recovery from illness, i. 115.
Enters Jerusalem by storm, i. 223.
Returns to Constantinople, and receives from the emperor the city of
Laodicea, i. 246.
Revisits Jerusalem as a pilgrim, i. 269.
Appointed regent of Jerusalem, i. 407.
His speech against Saladin, i. 417, i. 418.
Suspected of treachery, i. 419, i. 422 n.
Death of, i. 423.

——, the last count of Thoulouse, character and death, ii. 394,
ii. 395.

——, count de St. Gilles, one of the leaders of the crusades, i. 87,
i. 251, i. 252.
His quarrel with Godfrey, i. 244.

—— of Poictiers, appointed governor of Antioch, i. 312.
His interest in the crusades, i. 361.
Is slain, i. 379.

—— d’Agiles, the historian, i. 88 n., i. 190, et passim.

Raynouard, M., his notes on Hammer’s “Mysterium Baphometi Revelatum”,
iii. 494-500.

Redemption, mystery of the, celebrated at Jerusalem, i. 24.

Reformation, first dawnings of the, in Europe, ii. 196, ii. 197.
The Turkish hostilities favourable to its principles, iii. 246.

Relics, veneration for, among the Crusaders, ii. 141, ii. 142.

Religion, sanguinary wars in the name of, ii. 310.
Despotic principles of, noticed, ii. 111, ii. 241 and n.
Mingled with the institutions of the middle age, ii. 111, ii. 295,
ii. 299.

Renaud de Chatillon, biographical notices of, i. 403.
Raised by marriage to the throne of Antioch, _ib._
Makes war on the emperor of Constantinople, i. 404.
Defeats the Saracens, _ib._
His various military adventures, i. 404-415.
Taken prisoner by Saladin, i. 422.
Put to death, i. 424.

Renaudot, M., his description of the Greek fire, iii. 387 (App.).

Rephraim, valley of, i. 213.

Reslans, family of the, iii. 428.

Resurrection, church of the, i. 1.

Rhamnus, the shrub, i. 212.

Rhodes, defended by the knights of St. John, iii. 185.
Besieged by the Turks, iii. 188, iii. 189.
Captured, iii. 213.

RICHARD I., king of England, his quarrels with the king of France,
i. 440, i. 441.
Prepares for the holy war, i. 441 et seq.
Captures Cyprus, i. 475.
Married to Berengaria of Navarre, i. 476.
His arrival before the walls of Ptolemaïs, and his quarrels with
Philip of France, i. 476, i. 477.
Defeats Saladin at Arsur, i. 487, i. 488.
Surprised by the Mussulmans, i. 489.
Rebuilds Ascalon, and negotiates with Saladin, i. 491, i. 499.
Marches on Jerusalem, i. 492.
Retreats, i. 497.
His personal exploits, i. 498.
His interview with Aboubeker, i. 498 n.
Enters into a treaty of peace with Saladin, i. 500, i. 501.
Character of, 504; iii. 257.
Detained as a prisoner in Austria and Germany, i. 507.
Returns to England, i. 508.
Death of, ii. 42.
Anecdote of, ii. 43 n.
His adventures in the Holy Land, and his contests with Saladin,
iii. 395 et seq. (App.).
Account of his imprisonment in Germany, iii. 405 et seq.

Richard, duke of Cornwall, joins the Crusaders at Ptolemaïs, ii. 295.
Returns to Italy, ii. 296.

——, prince of Salerno, i. 86.

Rinaldo, a leader of the Crusaders, i. 74 and n.

Rion de Loheac, notices of, i. 245 n.

Robert, king of Scotland, pilgrimage of, i. 21.

——, duke of Normandy, father of William the Conqueror, undertakes a
penitential pilgrimage, i. 27.
Dies, i. 28.

——, son of William the Conqueror, a leader of the Crusaders, i. 82.
Defeats the Turks in Phrygia, i. 111.
Returns home, and dies in prison, i. 248.
Historical notices of, iii. 357 (App.).

——, count of Flanders, a leader of the Crusaders, i. 83.
Surnamed “The Lance and the Sword,” _ib._
Returns to his own country, and is killed by a fall from his horse,
i. 247 and n.

——, count of Paris, i. 83.
His reception by Alexius of Constantinople, i. 94.
Mortally wounded, i. 108.

—— de Vair, slain, ii. 408.

—— de Trils, death of, ii. 165.

—— le Frison, count of Flanders, penitential pilgrimage of, i. 27.
Anecdote of his son, i. 56 n.

Robert the Monk, the chronicler, i. 49 n.

Rodolphe, chancellor of Jerusalem, i. 328.

—— de Rhenfield, duke of Swabia, i. 76.

Romances during the period of the middle ages, iii. 342-344.

Romanus-Diogenes, death of, i. 36.

Rome, early pilgrimages to, i. 21.
A second time the capital of the world, i. 39.
Besieged by Frederick II., emperor of Germany, ii. 293.
Agitated state and desolation of, ii. 296.
Its alarm at the threatened invasions of the Turks, iii. 189.
Possessed by the French, iii. 194.
See _Popes_.

Rosnay, prior of, ii. 409.

Rossi, his speech to the Crusaders, ii. 84.

Rousseau, J. J., his remarks on the Crusaders, ii. 36.

Saadi, the Persian poet, ii. 189 and n.

Sabeans, sect of, i. 4.

Sadoletus, his eloquent exhortation in favour of a crusade against
the Turks, iii. 206.

St. Ambrose, pretended revelation of, i. 164.

St. Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux, incites the nations of Christendom to
the second crusade, i. 329 et seq.
Miracles imputed to, i. 339 and n.
His great influence, i. 343.
Reproaches against, for the misfortunes of the Crusaders, i. 376,
i. 377.
His death and character, i. 380, i. 381.

——, monastery of, i. 22 n.

St. Clair, virgins of, self-mutilated and slaughtered, iii. 86 n.

St. Dominic, order of, its origin, iii. 304.

St. Eusebius, his pilgrimage to the Holy Land, iii. 350.

St. Francis, order of, its origin, iii. 304.

St. George, his miraculous appearance to the Christian army, i. 221.

St. Jerome, his pilgrimage to the Holy Land, iii. 350.

St. John, knights of, i. 281, i. 307.
Heroic devotion of the, i. 308.
Their noble reply to Mahomet II., iii. 186.
Their bravery in the defence of Rhodes, iii. 188, iii. 189.
Driven from Rhodes, 213. Transferred to Malta, iii. 214.
Their brave defence of Malta, iii. 224.

St. Kenelmus, miracles attributed to, iii. 409.

St. Martin, the patron saint of Germany, ii. 31, ii. 32 and n.

St. Paulina, her pilgrimage to the Holy Land, iii. 350.

St. Simeon, port of, i. 140.

SALADIN, genius and fortunes of, i. xx.
Account of, i. 397 and n.
Appointed vizier of Egypt, _ib._
His character, i. 398.
His wars with the Christians of Syria, i. 401, i. 402 et seq.,
i. 417 et seq.
Defeats the Christians at Tiberias, i. 418-423.
His barbarous executions of the Christian knights, i. 424.
His further victories, and capture of numerous cities in Palestine,
i. 425 et seq.
Besieges and captures Jerusalem, i. 426, i. 429, i. 432.
His victorious career, i. 451 et seq.
Defeats the Crusaders at Ptolemaïs, i. 460, i. 466.
His conflicts with Richard I. and Philip of France, i. 478.
Is defeated by Richard at Arsur, i. 487, i. 488.
Destroys Ascalon by fire, i. 490.
Negotiates with Richard, i. 491, i. 499.
Enters into a treaty of peace, i. 500, i. 501.
Character of, i. 504, i. 505 and n.
His death, i. 508.
Dissolution of his empire, i. 509.
His dominions divided among his successors, ii. 2, ii. 3 and n.
The civil wars thence arising, ii. 4 et seq.

——, letter of, detailing his conquest of Jerusalem, iii. 372
(App.).
Sermon made on the occasion, iii. 376.
His contests with Richard I., iii. 395 et seq., iii. 405.

—— tenths, decree of the council of Paris for raising the, iii. 384
(App.).

Salisbury, earl of, engages in the seventh crusade, ii. 360. Slain,
ii. 408.

——, William of, joins Louis IX., ii. 379.

Samosata, city of, i. 123.

SARACENS, their fanaticism and bravery, i. 5.
Their conquests, i. 5, i. 6.
Capture Jerusalem, i. 6.
Defeated by Zimisces, i. 15.
Hostile spirit against the, i. 17.
Their contests with the Crusaders before Antioch, i. 158 et seq.
Reply of their general to the deputies of the Crusaders, i. 168.
Their order of battle before Antioch, i. 170.
Defeated by the Crusaders, i. 173, i. 174.
Insults to the Christian army before Jerusalem, i. 214.
Their preparations for resistance, i. 215, i. 216.
Advance from Cairo, i. 237;
and are defeated with great slaughter on the plain of Ascalon,
i. 240-242.
Defeat the Christians, i. 291.
Their dynasty almost annihilated, i. 382.
Defeat the Christians at Tiberias with immense slaughter,
i. 418-423.

Saracens, defeated by the Crusaders, ii. 18, 29.
Attacked by Louis IX., ii. 383;
and defeated, ii. 403.
Their severe conflicts with Louis, ii. 413 et seq.
Everywhere victorious, ii. 424 et seq.
Capture the king, ii. 428;
and annihilate his army, ii. 429 et seq.

——, divisions among the, iii. 3.
Letter from Daimbert, archbishop of Pisa, and others, detailing
their victories over them, iii. 362-364 (App.).
Letter from St. Louis respecting them, iii. 461.
Defeated by Edward I. of England, iii. 472.
See _Mohammedans_.

—— of Africa, invaded by the Christian forces, iii. 117.

Sarepta, taken by the Crusaders, i. 288.

Saron, forest of, memoir on the, iii. 388 (App.).

Satalia, pillaged by the Christian forces, iii. 183.

Sauria, in Phrygia, miseries of the Crusaders in, i. 113.

Scanderberg of Albania defeats the Turks, iii. 178.
Death of, iii. 180.

Scharmesah, in Egypt, captured by the Crusaders, ii. 397.

Sclaves, notices of the, i. 374.

Scete, solitude of, i. 21.

Scurvy, disease of, among the Crusaders, ii. 418 n.

Sefed, besieged and captured by the Mamelukes, iii. 13, iii. 14.
The inhabitants slaughtered, iii. 15.

Seldjouc, Turkish dynasty of the, i. 31, i. 32.
Tribes of, i. 34.
Their military ardour, i. 34, i. 35.
Dynasty of, almost annihilated, i. 382.

Selim ascends the Ottoman throne, iii. 201.
His warlike disposition, iii. 202.
Conquers the king of Persia and the sultan of Egypt, _ib._
Succeeded by Soliman, iii. 213.

Selim II. ascends the Ottoman throne, iii. 225.

Semlin, assailed by the Crusaders, i. 64.

Senna, brought from Asia, iii. 336.

Sepulchre. See _Holy Sepulchre_.

Serfage, under the feudal system, iii. 283, iii. 284, iii. 289 et seq.

Sergines, bravery of, ii. 426.

Serpents of the river Eleuctra, i. 198.
Various names of, i. 199 n.

Sextus IV. implores the aid of Christian Europe against the Turks,
iii. 189.

Sibila, city of, captured and burnt, i. 40 and n.

Sibylla, daughter of King Amaury, and wife of Guy de Lusignan,
ambition of, i. 413.
Death of, i. 470.

Sicilian vespers, iii. 66.

Sicily, conquered by Henry VI., ii. 20.
Crown of, granted by the pope to Charles, count of Anjou, iii. 21.
Discontents and revolts in, iii. 66.

Sidon surrenders to the Christians, i. 289.
Captured by the Mohammedans, ii. 392.
Surprised by the Turcomans, who slaughter the Christians, ii. 474.
Fortified by Louis IX., ii. 476.
Captured and destroyed by the Saracens, iii. 66.

Sigismund of Hungary, defeated by Bajazet, iii. 128.

Sigur, prince of Norway arrives at Jerusalem, with large forces to
assist Baldwin, i. 289.

Silk of the East, i. 11.
Manufacture of, during the middle ages, iii. 328, iii. 329.

Siloë, fountain of, i. 10, i. 209.

Simeon, patriarch of Jerusalem, i. 42.

Sins to be expiated by visiting the Holy Land, ii. 191.

Sirvente, a poem of the Troubadours, iii. 19, iii. 20 n.

Smyrna, pillaged by the Christian forces, iii. 103.
Captured and destroyed by Bajazet, iii. 133.

Sobieski, king of Poland, defeats the Turks at Vienna, iii. 235.

Soliman, the Turkish chief, extensive conquests of, i. 33.

——, the Ottoman sultan, takes possession of Belgrade and Rhodes,
iii. 213.
Invades Hungary, and defeats the Hungarians, iii. 214, iii. 215.
Besieges Vienna, iii. 217.
Death of, iii. 224.

Soneidanis, a class of Ismaëlians, iii. 428.

Sophronius, patriarch, death of, i. 6.

Sophia, victory of, iii. 137, iii. 139.

Souliers, family of the, i. 41 n.

Spain, crusades in, i. 375.
War with the Saracens and Moors, ii. 201, ii. 268.
Emancipated from Moorish domination, iii. 243.
State of, and changes in, during the age of the crusades, iii. 264
et seq.
Expels the Moors, iii. 266;
and establishes the Inquisition, iii. 267.
Increase of liberty in, iii. 285.

Spies, Turkish, barbarous treatment of, i. 137.

Statuary destroyed at Constantinople by the Latins, iii. 438-440.

Stellion, serpent so named, i. 199.

Stephen, duke of Burgundy, slain at Ramla, i. 282.

——, count of Blois, a leader of the Crusaders, i. 83.
Letter of, i. 95.

——, count of Chartres, slain at Ramla, i. 282.

—— de Salviac, notices of, i. 246.

Sugar, introduced into Europe during the middle ages, iii. 330.

Suger, prime minister of France, styled the “father of his country”,
i. 376.
Death of, and character, i. 380, i. 381.

——, Abbot, i. 330.
His advice to Louis VII., i. 341.

Sunnites, Mohammedan sect of the, iii. 413.

Surnames, on the origin of, ii. 282.

Swabia, royal family of, nearly extinct, iii. 21.

Sweno, king of Denmark, a leader of the Crusaders, i. 133.
Slain, i. 154 and n.

Syria, the cities and territories of, i. 126.
The Crusaders enter, i. 127.
Conquests in, by the Crusaders, i. 183 et seq.
Invade Egypt, i. 390 et seq.
Political state of, at the sixth crusade, ii. 226.
Possessed by the Egyptians and Carismians, ii. 331.
By the sultan of Egypt, ii. 377.
Principal cities captured by the Moguls, iii. 5.
Towns of, destroyed by the Crusaders, iii. 119.
Overrun by Tamerlane, iii. 132.
Geographical details respecting, iii. 485 (App.).
See _Palestine_.

Tabor, Mount, churches built on, i. 1.
Described, ii. 227.
Attacked by the Crusaders, _ib._

Tamerlane, history and extensive conquests of, iii. 132, iii. 133.
Defeats Bajazet at Ancyra, iii.133.

Tancred “the Brave,” character of, i. 86, i. 87.
His inflexible virtue, i. 96.
Hostile encounter with Baldwin, i. 118, i. 119.
“Tower of”, i. 217 and n.
Enters Jerusalem by storm, i. 222.
Takes possession of Tiberias and various other cities, i. 267.
Attacked by the sultan of Damascus, who is defeated by Godfrey,
i. 273.
His quarrel with Baldwin, i. 276, i. 277.
His death and character, i. 290.

Tarenta, remedy for the bite of a, i. 199 n.

Tarentum, principality of, i. 85.

Tarsus, city of, i. 116.
Disputes among the leaders of the Crusaders at, i. 117.
Taken possession of by Baldwin, i. 118.

Tartars, invasions of the, i. 255; ii. 265.
Defeat the Latins, ii. 166, ii. 167.
Their manners and customs, ii. 313.
History and conquests of, ii. 316 et seq., ii. 322, ii. 487; iii. 8,
iii. 95, iii. 132.
Government of the, ii. 321.
Capture Bagdad, iii. 4.
Their conquests in Syria, iii. 6.
Beaten and expelled by the Mamelukes, iii. 7.
The pope sends missionaries to them, iii. 94.
Their contests with the Mussulmans revive the hopes of the
Christians, _ib._
They send ambassadors to the pope, iii. 95.
Conquests of Tamerlane, their great leader, iii. 132, iii. 133.

Tasso, his “Jerusalem delivered”, i. 202 n., i. 205.
His account of the battle of Ascalon, i. 243 n.
His heroes more wonderful than those of Homer, i. 258.
Memoir of his enchanted forest, iii. 388 (App.).

Tatius quits the camp of the Crusaders, i. 135.

Taurus, Mount, sufferings of the Crusaders in passing, i. 126.

Taxation, created on the fall of feudalism, iii. 293.

Temelicus, defeated by the Saracens, i. 14.

Temory, Paul, Archbishop of Colotza, is appointed commander against
the Turks, and defeated, iii. 214, iii. 215.

Templars, the, i. 307.
Their devoted bravery, i. 308; ii. 414; iii. 88.
Defeat and slaughter of, i. 415, i. 416.
Their grand master taken prisoner by Saladin, i. 422.
Their conquests and possessions, ii. 9; iii. 98.
Their quarrels with the Hospitallers, ii. 9, ii. 10; iii. 2.
Accusations against, iii. 99.
Hammer’s notes on their apostasy, iii. 494-500 (App.).

Temugin, the Tartar chief, notices of, ii. 317 et seq.
Death of, ii. 321.

Thaher, governor of Aleppo, ii. 3.

Themal, bravery of, i. 13 n.

Theodore, governor of Edessa, i. 121 and n.

Theodosius, column of, at Constantinople, ii. 157 and n.

Theopolis, the ancient name of Antioch, i. 128.

Theriaca, a medicine brought from Antioch, iii. 336.

Thessalonica, possessed by Boniface, ii. 150;
by Baldwin, iii. 160.

Thevet, André, i. 41 n.

Thibault III., count of Champagne, engages in the second crusade,
i. 330.

—— IV., count of Champagne, engages in the fifth crusade, ii. 45.
His death and character, ii. 54.

—— V., king of Navarre, engages in the holy war, ii. 286, ii. 290.

Thierri, count of Flanders, i. 359.

Thimariots of Turkey, iii. 240.

Thoron, castle of, besieged, ii. 23-28.

Thrace entered by the Crusaders, i. 67.

Tiberias, taken possession of by Tancred, i. 267.
Captured by Saladin, i. 407.
Battle of, disastrous to the Christians, i. 418-423.
Letter from Saladin, detailing the battle of, iii. 372 (App.).

Togrul-Beg, elected king of the Turks, i. 31.
His victorious career, i. 31, i. 32.

Tolosa, victory of, over the Moors, ii. 201.

Tortosa, successful attack on by the Crusaders, i. 189.
Capture of, i. 254.
Retaken by the Mussulmans, i. 453.

Toucy, Chevalier de, ii. 466.

Tournaments of the middle age, iii. 296.

Tours, council of, for promoting the cause of the Crusaders, ii. 287.

Toutousch, the Turkish general, conquests of, i. 33.

Traconite, the country of, i. 318.

Tripoli, emir of, defeated by the Crusaders, i. 196.
The city of, captured by them, i. 287.
Riches of, i. 288.
Flourishing state of, i. 306.
Besieged by Saladin, i. 453.
Taken by storm, and the Christians slaughtered, iii. 69.
The city destroyed, iii. 70.
Recaptured and burnt by the Crusaders, iii. 119.

Tristan, duke of Nevers, death of, iii. 42.

Troncs, receipts of, in France, for the expenses of the crusades,
iii. 473;
and their expenditure, iii. 474 et seq.

Troubadours, songs of, during the middle ages, ii. 306, ii. 307;
iii. 342.
Their poetry for the crusades, iii. 452 (App.).

Trouvères during the middle ages, iii. 342.

“True cross,” a piece of, placed in the church of Drontheim, i. 289.
Captured by Saladin, i. 422.
Fragment of it taken from Constantinople, ii. 142 and n.

Tunis, the Crusaders under Louis IX. arrive at, iii. 37.
Historical notices of, iii. 37, iii. 38.
Captured, iii. 39.
Great mortality among the Crusaders at., iii. 41.
Death of Louis IX. at, iii. 46.
A truce concluded, iii. 50.

Turbessel, capture of, i. 121.

Turcoman, the surname of Ezz-Eddin Aybek, governor of Egypt, ii. 445.

TURKS, or TURCOMANS, their victorious and sanguinary career, i. 31 et
seq.
Embrace the Mussulman faith, i. 31.
Their social barbarism, i. 37.
Their power at the time of the first crusade, i. 97;
and the contests with them, i. 100 et seq.
Cruel treatment of, by the Crusaders, i. 137.
Their defeat before Antioch, i. 140, i. 141.
Defeat the Crusaders, i. 252, i. 253.
Cause of their victories, i. 255 n.
Their incursions in Palestine, i. 303.
Defeat the Germans, i. 351;
and are beaten by the French, i. 353.
Dynasties of, almost annihilated, i. 382.
Capture Sidon, and slaughter the inhabitants, ii. 474.
——, renewal of the crusades against, attempted, iii. 93.
Their conquest of Asia Minor, iii. 113.
The seat of their empire at Adrianople, _ib._
Their origin from the Tartars, iii. 120.
Their history and conquests, iii. 121 et seq.
Their invasion of Greece, iii. 122.
A crusade against, determined on, iii. 125, iii. 126.
Contests with, iii. 127.
Defeated by Tamerlane, iii. 132, iii. 133.
Their barbarities to the Christians, iii. 135.
Besiege Constantinople under Mahomet II., iii. 148 et seq.
Capture it, and annihilate the Greek empire, iii. 156.
Crusades against, undertaken, A. D. 1438-1481, iii. 159.
They penetrate into Hungary, iii. 166.
And are defeated at Belgrade, iii. 167.
Their extensive conquests, iii. 171, iii. 174, iii. 180, iii. 225.
Invade Hungary and different parts of Europe simultaneously,
iii. 187-189.
Defeated by the Hungarians, iii. 187.
Besiege Rhodes, iii. 188, iii. 189.
Capture Otranto, _ib._
Complete the overthrow of all the rival powers of the East,
iii. 203.
Defeat the Hungarians, iii. 215.
Capture Cyprus, iii. 225.
Defeated at the naval battle of Lepanto, iii. 226.
Succours against implored by Pope Alexander VII., and a Christian
confederation formed, iii. 233, iii. 234.
Their military power begins to decline, iii. 230, iii. 231,
iii. 236.
General review of their conquests, iii. 231 et seq.
Conclude a peace with the Christian forces in Hungary, iii. 234.
Defeated by Sobieski at Vienna, iii. 235.
Causes and history of their decline, iii. 236 et seq.
Their present political position, iii. 244 et seq.

TURKS, letter of Bohemond and others, detailing the defeat of the
Turks, iii. 360 (App.).
Letter to Pope Urban, detailing the victories of the Crusaders over
them, iii. 365.

Tyre, commercial greatness of, i. 300.
Siege and capture of, i. 300, i. 301.
Besieged by Saladin, i. 451.
Its heroic defence, i. 452.
Captured and destroyed by the Saracens, iii. 89.

Universities of Europe during the middle ages, iii. 337, iii. 339.

Urban II., Pope, his interview with Peter the Hermit, i. 42.
Receives the ambassadors of Alexis Comnenus, i. 44.
Convokes a council at Plaisance, i. 45.
At Clermont, i. 46 et seq.
His inciting speech in favour of the crusades, i. 48-50.

—— V. adopts the project of a new crusade, iii. 113.
And convokes a meeting at Avignon, iii. 113-114.

Valeran, bishop of Berytus, ii. 334.

Varangians, account of the, ii. 83 n.

Vaudois, religious principles of the, ii. 197.
Papal crusade against, ii. 199 and n.

Venetians embark for the Holy Land, and destroy the fleet of the
Saracens, i. 298.
Enter Jerusalem, i. 299.
Conquer Tyre, i. 301.
Return to Italy, i. 302.
Refinement of the, ii. 182.
Their contests with the Genoese, iii. 2.

Venice forbids intercourse with the Mussulmans, i. 15.
Commercial greatness of, ii. 48.
Dandolo, the doge, ii. 49.
Engages to assist the Crusaders, ii. 50, ii. 51.
Sums advanced by, ii. 53.
Pecuniary exactions of, ii. 59.
Her wealth and greatness, ii. 183, ii. 184.
Her possessions captured by the Turks, iii. 184.
Bajazet II. declares war against, iii. 197.
Her active preparations for defence, iii. 198.
Her commercial ambition, iii. 200.
Hélian’s diatribe against, _ib._
Rejoicings at, after the victory of Lepanto, iii. 226.
State of, during the age of the crusades, iii. 263.

Vermandois, Crusaders of the, i. 81.

Vermandois, count de, i. 83.
Led a prisoner to Constantinople, i. 89.
His treatment avenged, i. 90.
His bravery before Antioch, i. 170, i. 174.
Returns to Europe, i. 177.
Dies of his wounds, i. 254.

Vertot, abbé de, the historian, iii. 188.

Victor III., Pope, incites the Christians to take arms against the
infidels, i. 39, i. 40.

Vida, the Italian poet, his enthusiasm for the crusades, iii. 203.

Vienna, council of, convoked by Clement V. to promote a crusade,
iii. 97.
Besieged by the Turks, iii. 217, iii. 218, iii. 235.
Relieved by Sobieski, king of Poland, _ib._

Villehardouin, Geoffrey, marshal of Champagne, ii. 46 and n.
His address to the Venetians, ii. 50, ii. 51 and n.
His history of the contests between the Greeks and Latins, ii. 175.

——, William of, prince of Achaia, engages in the seventh crusade,
ii. 379.

Visions and prodigies, reliance of the Crusaders on, i. 192.

Vitri destroyed by Louis VII. of France, i. 330.

Volkmar, a priest, instigates the Crusaders to the greatest cruelties,
i. 70.

Walcknaer’s “Itinerary,” i. 3 n., i. 199 n.

Wales, journey through, relating the manners of the inhabitants in
the twelfth century, iii. 408 (App.).

Walter the Penniless, general of the Crusaders, i. 62.

——, count of Cæsarea, his accusations against the count of Jaffa,
i. 313.

Warna, battle of, iii. 143.

West, Christians of the, aroused against the East, i. xix.; i. 3,
i. 20, i. 21.
Institutions of the, in their infancy, i. 36, i. 37.
Enthusiasm in favour of the crusades, i. 54.
Agitated state of the, ii. 195.
Alarm among the Christian nations, at the fall of Constantinople,
iii. 159 et seq.

William, king of Sicily, engages in the holy war, i. 453.

—— IX., count of Poictiers, sets out for the East, i. 249 and n.

—— Rufus, duke of Normandy, i. 82.

——, count de Nevers, i. 249.
Defeated by the Turks, i. 253.

——, archbishop of Tyre, preaches in support of the holy war, i. 436,
i. 444.
His speech, i. 437, i. 438.

——, viscount de Melun, deserts the camp of the Crusaders, and is
retaken, i. 135.

—— de Clermont, bravery of, iii. 80.
Slain, iii. 80, iii. 87.

—— of Malmesbury, the chronicler, iii. 356.

—— of Tyre, the historian, i. 17, i. 41, i. 54, i. 62, i. 65, i. 147
n. et passim.

Wine of Gaza, celebrated, i. 11.

Wolf IX., duke of Bavaria, a leader of the Crusaders, i. 249.
Defeated, i. 253.

Worms, diet at, convoked by Henry VI. of Germany, ii. 13, ii. 14.

Yemen, a province of Arabia, ii. 3 n.

Yve, son of Hugh de Grandmenil, i. 83.

Zara, city of, revolts against the domination of Venice, ii. 60.
Siege of, ii. 63.

Zengui, prince of Mossoul, conquests of, i. 306, i. 320.
Attacks the Christian fortresses, i. 315.
Besieges and captures Edessa, i. 321-325.
Assassinated, i. 326.

Zimisces, emperor of the Greeks, i. 14.
Conquests of, i. 15.
His violent death, i. 36.

Zizim, disputes the Turkish empire with Bajazet, and visits Europe,
iii. 191.
Joins the Christian crusade against the Turks, iii. 195.
His death, _ib._

SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER.

M. MICHAUD has told the story of the crusades with such fulness and
accuracy that, so far as these religious pilgrimages in arms are
concerned, nothing need be added. The movement of the West upon the
East is traced and described in minute detail, with every accessory
of personal incident and achievement, and the work has been done so
thoroughly that probably no later historian will feel drawn to the same
field. It may be profitable, however, to supplement this trustworthy
and spirited narrative by a rapid survey of the wide and fruitful
changes which the crusades directly and indirectly introduced into
the social and political life of Europe. It is one of the gains of
time that its lapse discloses those larger relations of great events
which are hidden from the observation of an earlier age; and while
the earlier historian has the advantage of being near the historical
movement which he describes, and of collecting at first hand the
fullest information of its origin, direction, and personality, the
later writer is far more fully equipped for the work of setting the
movement in right relation to its social and political environment.
Thucydides must remain preëminently the historian of the Peloponnesian
War; but Grote and Curtius, largely deriving their facts from him,
are able to discuss the decisive struggle between Athens and Sparta
with wider grasp of the elements of Greek character and politics which
brought about the conflict, and to trace its influence in later Greek
history. This chapter will add no newly discovered facts concerning
the crusades; but, taking advantage of later studies in this important
field, it will indicate some of the results of these expeditions as
they have disclosed themselves in the subsequent political development
of Europe.

The Council of Clermont in 1095 found the feudal system fully developed
in Western Europe. The Holy Roman Empire which, in the person of
Charlemagne, had given brief promise of a restoration of authority to
government, and of cohesion to society, had become a mere shadow among
the warring, aggressive factions of feudalism. The tremendous energy of
Charles was potent enough to drive back the boundaries of barbarism,
and make for a little time a comparatively clear field for efforts
toward an organized and stable society; but the task of subduing the
social and political anarchy about him was too great even for a ruler
of his genius. The time was not ripe, and when the laboriously gathered
lines of power fell from the strong hand, there was no successor to
grasp them. Anarchy became well-nigh universal. The royal authority
was everywhere, with here and there a passing exception, a vague and
indefinite thing, hemmed in and jealously watched by barons, more
powerful than the king in everything but name. Society was broken up
into small communities, with apparently no common direction of movement
or impulse of progress. Every castle was a centre of power, which
might be hostile to every other authority about it. There were no
common ties binding races into the larger fellowship of kindred aims
and aspirations. Men of the same blood were arrayed in more deadly
hostility to each other than were men of alien races.

No large enterprises were possible, because the community of sentiment
and the harmony of action which made them possible, were alike absent.
The principle of individualism—the greatest contribution of the
northern races to the political development of Europe—had reached its
fullest growth, and everywhere asserted itself in the most aggressive
forms. Western Europe had gone so far in this direction that no further
progress in the arts, industries, and institutions of civilization
was possible without the introduction of a new element into the
problem. What was needed was the cohesive influence of some common
purpose, which should give a new unity by disclosing to men the larger
possibilities of organized social and political life. Organization is
the necessary condition of progress, and so long as Europe remained
without the conception of government with well-defined powers,
regularity of administration, and ability to suppress opposition and
impress its authority, in all sections of its territory, with a firm
and steady hand, no forward movement was possible.

This spell of political and social impotence was broken by the
crusades. Peter the Hermit was a voice crying in the wilderness, the
forerunner of a historical movement which was to be the salvation of
Europe. Returning from Syria with a heart hot with indignation at the
insults and persecutions which beset the pilgrim to the Holy Sepulchre,
his call to arms had all the authority which a genuine religious
conviction could give it, and all the persuasive eloquence of a call
for which men had been longing and waiting in silence and despair. No
one will deny the strength of the religious sentiment which, in answer
to that message, speedily marshalled the hosts of the first crusade;
but the restless life of oppressed and burdened races found in the
new enterprise an outlet through which it poured itself like a rising
tide. For the first time in its history Western Europe had a common
purpose and united in a common undertaking. In the farthest hamlet
the overshadowing power of the feudal lord became for the time being
tributary to the authority of the Church, summoning Europe to fight
its battles and protect its sacred places. Europe awoke to the fact,
unsuspected before, that it was larger than its warring feudatories,
that the possibilities of its life were far more varied and rich than
men had dreamed under the iron pressure of the feudal system, and thus
the needed element of association and coöperation asserted itself.

Like all great social and political changes, the transition from feudal
communities to national organization was unconscious and undiscovered.
In the minds of the crusaders and of the communities whose faith they
represented and whose impulse they carried into action, no clearly
defined ideal of national life answered the call of Peter. That ideal
grew slowly, but its roots were planted in this movement. Spaniards,
Germans, Italians, Englishmen, and Frenchmen found themselves acting
in harmony for a common purpose. They bore different banners, they
marched under different leaders, they took different roads; but a
common impulse sent them forth and a common goal drew them on. Their
community of sentiment was often marred by mutual jealousies, and their
unity of action impaired by mutual antagonisms; but the substantial
harmony which underlay these disorders and which secured the positive
results of the earlier crusades, gave Europe a conception of life which
it had thoroughly learned before the last crusaders returned from their
fruitless quest.

That which drew together various nationalities and races, disclosing
to them the religious and social aims and tastes which they possessed
in common, brought about a similar result through the widely separated
ranks of society. European society had no homogeneity when the first
crusade was preached. It was divided into ranks sharply discriminated
from each other, bound together by the pressure of external force,
rather than by the cohesive power of organic structure. There was no
mutuality of interest or feeling. King, baron, burgher, and peasant
were so widely apart by virtue of the education of their circumstances
that they could not understand each other. That common language of
experience and aspiration, which to-day finds a response among men of
all social ranks, would have been incomprehensible in the age of the
first crusade. Baron and peasant had indeed acted together in feudal
warfare; but only as the lower was forced to serve the higher, the
weaker to do the work of the stronger. No common impulse had ever
before stirred the common humanity of all classes; no call had ever
before summoned them as individuals to a service in which each stood
in a spiritual equality with every other. Men had moved in classes
before, but they moved as classes and not as men.

The Church had seen its early dream of an imperial power with which it
could keep itself in friendly and influential alliance fade like a mist
before the iron individualism of feudalism, and had been compelled to
begin almost anew its conquest over the governing powers of Europe.
The work which a few skilful ecclesiastics could have done at the
courts of kings in a few capital cities was relegated for centuries
to an army of priests attached to baronial households, and conducting
the sacred offices of their religion in the chapels of castles over
the vast territory of Western Europe. The Church and feudalism were
in radical antagonism; they represented ideas which could not, in the
extremes in which each held them, be harmonized in practical life. The
Church had yielded to feudalism, as in an earlier age she had yielded
to the barbarian conquest of Southern Europe, because surrender, in
form at least, was inevitable. But, in the latter case, as in the
former, the struggle was renewed at once upon a new plan of action. The
orderly campaign by massing of forces at a few strategic points was
abandoned for incessant watchfulness and a perpetual skirmish along an
immensely extended frontier. Every barony became a scene of action,
every castle a stronghold to be won by the most skilful devices of the
spiritual warfare. The Church was the only representative of the idea
of universal authority and order, but as yet no occasion had arisen by
which it might profit to make that conception an active principle in
society. It was in deadly antagonism to the system which broke society
up into small, hostile communities; but the time had not come when it
could bring to bear a force powerful enough to destroy its antagonist,
or to set at work an influence which would inevitably result in the
disintegration of the feudal order.

The preaching of the first crusade was an opportunity which the
Church was quick to recognise and to follow up with that persistent
and consummate ability which characterized all its earlier and much
of its later history. It was possible now to call not only separate
feudatories but all Europe to arms. Feudalism would keep men divided
into fixed classes, and society broken up into permanent groups; the
Church, on the other hand, would prevent the oppression of one class by
another by binding all in a universal allegiance to herself, and would
impress upon society the unity of a common service and a common faith.

The crusades sprang out of a feeling which was as strong in the heart
of the peasant as in that of the noble. A great cause and a universal
sentiment gave the Church the opportunity for which it sought. A
solemn council made the preaching of Peter the Hermit the voice of the
Church herself. Feudal distinctions were forgotten in the enthusiasm
of a service which transcended in its sanctions and its aims all
earthly duties, and in which earthly differences were for the moment
laid aside. The power of the feudal nobility, hitherto the dominant
authority in Western Europe, became, for the time being, secondary to
that of the Church. Men were summoned no longer to the service of their
lords, but to the service of their Church. The change was radical. It
was the introduction of a principle which is still struggling to assert
itself in practical legislation and political action. Its development
has been slow, but it has revolutionized society, and what its ultimate
outcome is to be no man can predict. King, baron, burgher, and peasant
found themselves side by side in the same cause, one class serving
another, not by virtue of a feudal but of a spiritual authority;
comrades in arms in an enterprise which addressed what was common and
eternal in them all rather than what was distinctive and conventional.
Not suddenly, but by the slow processes of growth which belong to great
moral changes, men forgot their abasement and slavery under feudalism
in the dawning light of a liberty conferred by a superior and a
spiritual power. A conception of a higher authority than that lodged in
the hands of the feudal lord took root in the mind of Europe and became
fruitful of vast change. In Syria the leaders of the crusades were
not able to keep their followers in subjection when they attempted to
follow their personal ambitions. The commanding purpose which drew them
thither overmastered all private designs and made insubordination a
virtue. An influence more powerful than feudalism entered into European
life with the crusades, and was perhaps the most far-reaching and
potential effect which they produced upon the world.

The crusades found Europe stationary and without the power of progress.
Society had crystallized into forms so rigid and fixed that strong
pressure from without was essential to any movement toward liberation.
Not only were communities circumscribed and reduced in numbers, and
individuals held in their places by a power against which it was
hopeless to strive; but the whole population was bound to the soil by a
system of servitude the most exacting and the most pervasive known in
history. Contiguous communities spoke dialects differing so widely as
to make communication between men of the same race almost as difficult
as between men of widely separated nationalities.

There was almost no interchange of knowledge, no commerce of ideas.
Where men were born they spent their lives, and were buried with
no sense of any larger relationships in life than those of the
locality which formed their little sphere of action. Feudalism, in
disintegrating society and reducing the individual to an unimportant
factor in a vast system, had paralyzed the power of development,
which comes only through interchange and combination of energy. The
Chinese Empire of a century ago was hardly more securely walled in
from external influence and condemned to absolute stagnation than were
the countries over which feudalism had spread its iron network. Into
this close, dense atmosphere the crusades sent a vigorous current of
new thought. The hopeless and weary routine to which great populations
were condemned explains much of that enthusiasm with which multitudes
rushed into a dangerous and laborious service. Men were stifled in an
air which they and their fathers before them had breathed without any
possibility of change. In the crusade epoch the religious impulse was
strong, but the impulse toward freedom was doubtless the sentiment next
in importance.

Between 1095 A.D. and 1291 A.D., there was an immense change. The first
crusade found men of all nationalities eager to follow its leaders,
the preachers of the last crusade appealed to deaf ears. Europe was
indifferent to the cause which for two centuries had found orators as
eloquent as Bernard of Clairvaux and leaders as pure as Godfrey, as
daring as Richard, as devoted as St. Louis, and yet religious zeal was
not dead, nor had the sanctions of religion lost their sacredness.
The secret of the change in European sentiment lay in the enlargement
and liberation of European life which the crusades had secured. There
was a comparatively free interchange between the different sections.
The incessant movements of the crusading hosts, the intermingling of
so many different races had broken down many barriers and set many
unifying influences at work. The German knew the Frenchman, and the
Frenchman the Englishman, and this mutual knowledge was fruitful in
quickened and stimulated life everywhere. Men began to better their
condition by a change of location. Emigration, which in the earlier
centuries of the Christian era had changed the face of Europe and then
had been checked by feudalism, began once more in ways so small and
insignificant as to remain long unnoticed, but of immense importance in
the light of subsequent history.

The modification and disintegration of the feudal system is
unquestionably the greatest contribution of the crusades to the
development of humanity. This result was brought about, as has been
shown, by the liberation of thought and life throughout Western
Europe; but there were other and important elements which entered into
the solution of the problem of European progress.

The expeditions to the East were, for that age, enormously expensive.
Very many of the great feudal lords who fitted out expeditions were not
able, out of their ordinary resources, to meet the necessary outlay.
Money was raised by all kinds of expedients. Cities took advantage
of the needs of their feudal lords to purchase their freedom, great
estates that for centuries had increased by continued accumulation and
conquest were encumbered or sold. There was an interchange of landed
property altogether unprecedented in European history. Many great fiefs
disappeared entirely during the two centuries which saw the gathering
of the successive expeditions for the East. By purchase and by escheat
and confiscation, which the disorder of the times made possible, the
royal authority made immense inroads into the territory of feudalism,
and when the last hopeless struggle in Syria was over, the principle of
centralization, represented everywhere by the royal power, had gained
vastly upon the extreme individualism of feudalism.

The advance of the Church in influence and authority was, however, the
most immediate and marked result of the crusades. Religious ideas,
Guizot declares, had experienced no change, but power had changed hands
no less than property. The Church, quick to profit by every opportunity
which the troubled age and the vicissitudes of war afforded, had pushed
steadily forward, occupying every defenceless position and fortifying
every exposed point. The authority which Urban had exercised at the
Council of Clermont, in calling all men to arms as subjects of the
Church, was asserted upon every occasion with that steadiness and
universality of policy which is one of the secrets of papal power. A
new principle of allegiance was substituted for feudal subordination.
Differences between great barons were settled by the voice of the
Church, and in the councils of kings the pope spoke by his personal
representatives. Legates from Rome became familiar figures in every
capital, and the persistence with which they made themselves heard
in all public matters rapidly and continually enlarged the popular
conception of the scope and weight of the authority of Rome.

In the East results of equal moment were brought about by the campaigns
of the crusaders. Communication was reopened between the East and the
West. The rude hand of war threw open the doors, which were never again
to remain permanently closed.

The fierce struggles of the contending parties did not blind them
to the fact that each had much to learn from the other. Oriental
magnificence and culture had charms even for the warriors whose mailed
hands were sworn to destroy the civilization under which they were
developed. The positive and immediate gain to Western knowledge was
doubtless less than was formerly believed, but the ulterior gain is
incalculable. If the West is not indebted to the East for the art of
printing and the compass, it is indebted for a substantial enrichment
of thought, for a great enlargement of mental horizon. The interchange
of thought which was set in motion by the crusades is still to work
out its richest results; and in contemporaneous history there is no
more impressive feature than the confluence of these two ancient
civilizations.

AINGER’S EDITION OF CHARLES LAMB.

_(By Arrangement with Messrs. Macmillan & Co., London.)_

CHARLES LAMB’S POEMS, PLAYS, AND MISCELLANEOUS ESSAYS.

With 50 Pages of Introduction and Notes by ALFRED AINGER, Editor of
“The Essays of Elia.” 12mo, cloth, gilt top. 432 pages. $1.50.

“In this volume Lamb’s poems have been chronologically arranged, and
the reader can trace the various events of the poet’s life in his
works.”—_N. Y. Examiner._

“Mr. Ainger’s work has been most intelligently and satisfactorily
performed. The edition is one which may be safely recommended for
accuracy and completeness.”—_Boston Courier._

“This volume will give endless pleasure to thousands—making Lamb
no longer a mere name, but a friend. Those readers who know Lamb as
a poet only by his verses, few in number, but of exquisite beauty,
will be surprised at discovering the range of his poetic power. The
prose Essays in this volume abound in delightful humor.”—_Providence
Journal._

_The London Academy_ says: “Last year we had the incomparable
_Elia_’—here we get all of Lamb’s miscellaneous writings that he had
himself selected for preservation in a permanent shape. None will ever
want a more satisfactory edition than this. For the benefit of the
curious we must add that Mr. Ainger here prints for the first time
a copy of Album Verses, written for Mrs. De Morgan, and a letter to
Dodwell, Lamb’s old fellow clerk in the India House.”

A NEW EDITION OF (From New Plates)

LAMB’S ESSAYS OF ELIA.

_With 50 Pages of Introduction and Notes by ALFRED AINGER. 12mo, cloth
gilt top. 550 pages. $1.50._

_N. Y. Christian Union_ says: “The value of this edition is very much
increased by Mr. Ainger’s notes, which form by far the best commentary
on Lamb that has been given to the world. Mr. Ainger is a thorough
master of all information relating to Lamb and to his work; he has
studied all the questions involved, looked up all manner of obscure and
out-of-the-way facts, and gives the essays in some parts a much fresher
meaning.”

THIS NEW EDITION includes Mr. Ainger’s Notes, of which “The Nation”
says: “Are admirable. They fill nearly fifty pages, and CONTAIN A
MASS OF INTERESTING INFORMATION ABOUT LAMB AND HIS WRITINGS AND HIS
FRIENDS. Bibliographical details are given as to the first publication
of the Essays in Magazines here and there. Many obscurities and
allusions are explained, and many of Lamb’s mystifications are
unveiled. Mr. Ainger has had the use of a key (in Lamb’s handwriting)
to the various first series of the Essays.”

_Copies sent on receipt of price, charges prepaid, by_

A. C. Armstrong & Son, 714 Broadway, New York.

CHOICE STANDARD WORKS.

A NEW AND HANDSOME LIBRARY EDITION

MILMAN’S COMPLETE WORKS,

_With Table of Contents and Full Indexes._

IN 8 VOLS., CROWN 8VO, CLOTH.

PRICE, $12.00 PER SET. (Reduced from $24.50.)

(_Bound in Half Calf extra, $25.00 per set._)

THIS EDITION OF MILMAN’S WORKS, THOROUGHLY REVISED AND CORRECTED,
COMPRISES

The History of the Jews, 2 Vols.
The History of Christianity, 2 Vols.
History of Latin Christianity, 4 Vols.

DR. MILMAN has won lasting popularity as a historian by his three great
works, HISTORY OF THE JEWS, HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, and HISTORY OF
LATIN CHRISTIANITY. These works link on to each other, and bring the
narrative down from the beginning of all history to the middle period
of the modern era. They are the work of the scholar, a conscientious
student, and a Christian philosopher. DR. MILMAN prepared this new
edition so as to give it the benefit of the results of more recent
research. In the notes, and in detached appendices to the chapters, a
variety of very important questions are critically discussed.

The author is noted for his calm and rigid impartiality, his fearless
exposure of the bad and appreciation of the good, both in institutions
and men, and his aim throughout, to utter the truth always in charity.
The best authorities on all events narrated have been studiously sifted
and their results given in a style remarkable for its clearness, force
and animation.

MILMAN’S WORKS HAVE TAKEN THEIR PLACE AMONG THE APPROVED CLASSICS OF
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. The general accuracy of his statements, the
candor of his criticisms and the breadth of his charity are everywhere
apparent in his writings. His search at all times seems to have been
for truth, and that which he finds he states with simple clearness and
with fearless honesty. HIS WORKS ARE IN THEIR DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AS
VALUABLE AS THE VOLUMES OF GIBBON ARE IN SECULAR HISTORY. THEY DESERVE
A PLACE IN EVERY LIBRARY IN THE LAND. THIS NEW EDITION, in 8 vols.,
contains AN AVERAGE OF OVER 900 PAGES per volume. PRICE, $12.00 PER
SET. (Formerly published in 14 vols. at $24.50.)

_Sent on receipt of price, charges prepaid, by_

A. C. ARMSTRONG & SON, 714 Broadway, New York.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] We find copious details upon these disputes, and their origin, in
_Sanuti_, which we have thought it best to abridge.

[2] We have adopted the version of M. Deguignes as the most probable.
(See _History of the Huns_.)

[3] One of the principal difficulties that an historian of this epoch
experiences, is, to preserve the connection in his narrative, from
having to speak at the same time of the West and of the East, of
the Christians, the Mamelukes, and the Tartars. Here a new people
start up upon the stage, there an old empire falls to decay: all the
events are hurried and confounded together, and the march of history
is embarrassed among so many ruins. We endeavour to be as clear as
possible.

[4] Many chronicles say that Oulagon shut the caliph up in the midst of
all his treasures, and left him to die of hunger: this circumstance is
not at all probable, and has not been acknowledged by M. Deguignes.

[5] Most historians have taken their accounts of this war of the Moguls
from an esteemed work, entitled _Fragmentum de Statu Saracœnorum_;
it, however, contains many errors, and ought to be rectified in
several places by the study of the Oriental historians. Some valuable
information respecting this war of the Tartars may also be found in the
Armenian Hayton, and in Sanuti; but these authors must be read with
precaution and suspicion.

[6] Bela IV., king of Hungary, wrote to the pope, that if he were not
speedily succoured he should form an alliance with the Tartars. The
pope reproved him warmly. Alexander IV. wrote to all Christian princes,
prelates, and communities, to consult upon the means of resisting the
barbarians, as well in the East as in the West. In Raynaldi—the year
1262, Nos. 29 and 30—his letter may be seen, in which he enters into
many details upon the levy of soldiers, and upon subsidies. This letter
has been preserved by Matthew Paris, who speaks of the councils held on
this subject; some facts relative to the invasion of the Tartars may
likewise be found in William of Nangis and Matthew of Westminster, as
well as in the _Collection of Councils_.

[7] This singular fact is related by the Arabian historian Aboulfeda,
and repeated by M. Deguignes, vol. iv. p. 133.

[8] This circular is reported by Raynaldi, Nos. 68 and 69. The motives
alleged by the pope, in his letter, astonish the wise Fleuri, who
observes upon the spirit of contradiction which we have mentioned.

[9] These expeditions of Bibars are related with all their details
in the chronicles of Ibn-Ferat and in Makrizi. Although we have much
abridged our account, we fear we shall be accused of tediousness. We
have yielded to our inclination of filling up the deficiencies which
exist in all the chronicles of the West in their accounts of this
period. The life of Bibars has likewise been of great service to us.

[10] The Arabian chronicles describe this event in a very obscure and
equivocal manner; they scarcely mention the massacre of the prisoners,
and say but little of the capitulation; they accuse the Franks of
having taken Mussulman prisoners away with them, which is not very
probable.

[11] We are afraid M. Michaud carries the partialities of Biography
into the pages of History: in the former, such are sometimes excusable;
in the latter, never. Our readers who look back to the taking of
Jerusalem or Ptolemaïs, will at once see how weak is the claim of the
Christians to a superiority over their adversaries in mercy. As to
the religious portion of the account, history teems with wholesale
conversions of conquered armies and nations. See Charlemagne and our
own Alfred, for instance. We thought that the idea of Mahometanism
being _a religion of the sword_ was exploded. Gibbon positively denies
it to be so, and asserts that no precept or passage of the Koran
inculcates it.—TRANS.

[12] Sanuti is almost the only Christian writer that affords
information on the taking of Sefed.

[13] “I cannot tell the amount,” says Joinville, “of what the king laid
out for the fortification of Jaffa, it was so great. He closed the
canal between the two seas, he built twenty-four towers, and cleansed
the ditches without and within. There were three gates, of which the
legate built one, and likewise part of the walls. And in order to show
you what the king must have expended, I will tell you what the legate
said when I asked him how much that gate and the wall had cost him.
I had reckoned that the first cost him five hundred livres, and the
latter three hundred livres; but he told me, as God might help him,
that the gate and the wall had cost him thirty thousand livres.”

[14] This little incident is quite dramatic, and, in good hands, would
not look badly on canvass. Would it not assist art, if historians,
when forcibly struck by the scenes they describe, would suggest to
painters, who so frequently prove they are at a loss for subjects by
their injudicious choice, events, persons, and passions fit for the
pencil?—TRANS.

[15] This letter of Bibars, which was written by his secretary, the
author of the life we have of this sultan, does not only speak of the
taking and the destruction of Antioch, but of the ravages committed
by the Mamelukes in the territory of Tripoli. This letter is of great
length, but we find in it more declamatory sentences and Oriental
figures than facts for the pen of the historian.

[16] Sirvente is a kind of poem peculiar to the troubadours.

[17] This _sirvente_, which is attributed to a knight of the Temple,
has been translated by the Abbé Millot, who appears to have altered the
sense of it. It is printed in the fourth volume, p. 131, of the _Choix
des Poésies des Troubadours_, by M. Raynouard, perpetual secretary
to the French Academy. We make use of a literal translation that M.
Raynouard has kindly communicated to us.

[18] These details, as well as the most of those that precede them,
concerning the Mussulmans, are taken from the valuable chronicle of
Ibn-Ferat.

[19] “He was of opinion,” says William de Nangis, “that the kingdom of
France had undergone great disgrace in the first pilgrimage.” Le père
Maimbourg expresses himself thus upon the king’s determination:—“St.
Louis, great saint as he was, could not help thinking that much shame
lay upon him for having succeeded so ill in Egypt.”

[20] _Hist. de St. Louis_, by Filleau de la Chaise.

[21] See the letters of Clement, in Duchesne, epist. 269.

[22] Joinville, when present at the mass in the chapel, heard two
knights conferring; one said, that if the king took the cross, it would
be one of the most fatal days ever seen in France; for if we take the
cross, we shall ruin the king; and again, if we take the cross, we
shall lose God’s grace, because we do not take the cross for the sake
of him.

[23] When our readers look back to the means employed in former
crusades to extort money from all classes, as well as from the clergy,
we think they will partake of our surprise at this assertion. The
clergy had been, in most cases, the recipients of the taxes upon the
laity, and according to our author himself, had not always proved
trustworthy collectors.—TRANS.

[24] All these details upon the tenths are of great importance for
the history of the crusades: for this negotiation the following
authorities may be consulted: Raynaldi, No. 59; the _Spicilège_, vol.
xiii. p. 221; the _Supplement_ to Raynaldi, book lxix. No. 42; Fleury’s
_Ecclesiastical History_, and the _Acts_ of Rymer.

[25] As historians, we should hesitate to assert this, and should
advise our readers to adopt it with much caution, and many
limitations.—TRANS.

[26] This dissertation, which has been sent to us by the author, bears
for title, _An Historical Dissertation upon the Part the Spaniards
took in the Wars beyond the Seas, and upon the Influence of these
Expeditions, from the Eleventh to the Fifteenth Century_, by Don
Fernandez de Crevarette. This work, in which a learned criticism and
a sound erudition prevail, contains many valuable documents; we shall
often have occasion to quote it.

[27] Migeray thus describes the murder of Conradin:—“As Charles had
determined to go into Africa with the king, St. Louis, not knowing what
to do with Conradin and Frederick, whom it was dangerous to keep, and
still more to release, in a kingdom filled with faction and revolt, he
ordered them to be brought to trial before the syndics of the cities of
the kingdom.”

[28] For the preparations for the voyage of Louis IX., William
of Nangis, Geoffrey de Beaulieu, the _Gestes_ of St. Louis, the
continuator of Matthew Paris, and Joinville, may be consulted.

[29] “It is true that before the king Louis took the cross, he had had
several messages from the king of Tunis, and at divers times, and many
had been sent to him; these messages gave Louis to understand that the
king of Tunis was willing to become a Christian, and that he would the
more willingly change his faith if an opportunity should occur in which
his own honour and the welfare of his people would be secured. The good
Christian king believed that if he and his renowned hosts should come
to Tunis suddenly, scarcely could the king of Tunis refuse or excuse
such a reasonable opportunity for receiving holy baptism,” &c.—_Annals
of the Reign of St. Louis_, by William of Nangis.

[30] Some classical authorities name it Tunetum; others, Tunes.—TRANS.

[31] Louis makes use of the expression: “Je vous dis le _ban_,” &c.
which word cannot be used in this sense in English, but is very
effective in French, and was employed in many legal proclamations
connected with royal or seignorial rights,—as, for instance: _ban_ is
a proclamation by which all who held lands of the crown of France were
summoned to serve the king in his wars.—TRANS.

[32] William of Nangis says on this subject:—“This was great treachery
on the part of the Saracens, and great simplicity on the part of the
Christians.”

[33] Geoffrey de Beaulieu has given an account of these instructions
in Latin. They are in old French in Joinville and in the _Annals of
the Reign of St. Louis_. These three authors give them with remarkable
differences. Moreau, in the twentieth volume of his _Discours sur
l’Histoire de France_, gives another new version, which he declares to
have been copied from one of the registers of the Chamber of Accounts,
in which, probably, Philip le Hardi was desirous this monument should
be preserved. It is this version we have principally followed in the
extract we have here given.

[34] Details upon the death of St. Louis may be found in Geoffrey de
Beaulieu, William of Chartres, William of Nangis, and in a letter
from the bishop of Tunis, reported by Martenne; Joinville relates a
few circumstances of it; but it is very much to be regretted that the
good seneschal was not present at the last moments of St. Louis; how
touching would his relation have been! and how much better would it
have been than that which is given to us by eyewitnesses, who have
written with such unfeeling dryness and conciseness!

[35] This letter, which has been translated into Latin, may be found
in the collection of Martenne. We will give an extract from it in our
Appendix.

[36] We read in the life of Bibars and in the chronicle of Ibn-Ferat,
that the sultan of Cairo was much dissatisfied with the conduct of the
king of Tunis. The peace which the latter made, left the Crusaders
at liberty to carry their arms into Egypt. Bibars would have wished
the Christian army to have been detained on the coast of Africa. He
threatened to dethrone his ally, and told the ambassadors of the
king of Tunis, that such a prince as he was not worthy to reign over
Mussulmans.

[37] For the events that followed the death of St. Louis, see Duchesne,
and _le Spicilège_, vol. i.

[38] We hope our readers, while they peruse the latter part of
this otherwise good paragraph, will not forget that we are only
translators.—TRANS.

[39] Among the numerous panegyrics of Louis IX. there are few that have
stood the test of time. Voltaire has drawn a fine portrait of the good
king. M. Dampmartin, in his work upon the kings of France, has spoken
of this great prince with ability and truth.

[40] Words of the _Bull of Canonization_.

[41] The Arabian chroniclers have preserved several of these treaties:
we find in the extracts from Oriental manuscripts, a treaty between the
sultan of Cairo and the little city of Tortosa. When reading the titles
and the dependencies of the masters and the inhabitants of Tortosa, we
may fancy we read the lease of a bailiwick or a farm, made before a
notary.

[42] In Ibn-Ferat we may read the letter which the sultan of Cairo
wrote on the subject of the princess of Berouth, who had left her
little principality without the consent of the sultan. (See the
extracts from Arabic manuscripts.)

[43] This account is much longer in Ibn-Ferat; whilst endeavouring
to preserve the tone and the Oriental colouring of it, we have felt
it necessary to abridge it. The chronicle of Ibn-Ferat, which is
a collection of many other chronicles, contains several different
versions; this appears to us the most probable, and, at the same time,
the one best calculated to show what were the resources of the nations
of Asia against the excesses of despotism.

[44] Many historians think that Charles’s preparations were intended to
be directed against Constantinople. Without contradicting this opinion,
we may believe that the king of Sicily thought likewise of the kingdom
of Jerusalem. Charles was always very secret in his political projects;
and very frequently the dissimulation of princes causes as much
embarrassment to historians as it could have done ill to the countries
exposed to its attempts.

[45] The text of this treaty may be read in the life of Kelaoun.

[46] M. de Sacy has translated a treaty concluded between the sultan
of Egypt and the kings of Sicily and Arragon. The following is one
of the clauses of this treaty:—“If the case should happen that the
pope of Rome, the kings of the Franks, of the Greeks, of the Tartars,
or others, should ask the king of Arragon or his brothers, or should
cause to be asked in the states of their dominions, auxiliary troops or
any succour, whether of cavalry, infantry, money, vessels, clothing,
or arms, the said princes would give no consent to it, either openly
or in secret; they would grant them no succour, and would consent to
nothing of the kind. If the king of Arragon should learn that one
of the above-named kings should have any intention of carrying war
into the states of the sultan, or to cause him any prejudice, he will
send and advise the sultan of it, and will inform him on what side
his enemies propose to attack him, and that with the shortest delay
possible, before they shall be put in motion, and he will conceal
nothing concerning it from him.” This treaty is very long, and provides
against all difficulties. We may here make a general remark, which is,
that most of the treaties made between the Orientals and the Christians
surpass, in some sort, the sagacity of modern diplomacy; so much
mistrust gave foresight to the negotiators and the contracting powers.

[47] We can find no document on this subject in the chronicles of the
West; our guide has been Ibn-Ferat.

[48] All these curious details upon Ptolemaïs, its morals, and the
mode of living of its inhabitants, are furnished by Herman Cornarius
(Ekard’s Collection). A more extensive extract will be found in our
analysis of the German authors.

[49] We find this fact in two Austrian chronicles, which have
for title, one, _Chronicon Anonymi Leobensis_; the other, _Thomœ
Ebendorfeiri de Haselbach Chronicon_. The first says that the legate
called together the people of Ptolemaïs, that he launched against them
the anathemas of the Church, and then embarked to return to Rome. This
last circumstance appears to us improbable, and we have, therefore,
passed it over in silence.

[50] This circumstance is related in the life of the sultan Kelaoun.
(See the extracts from Arabian manuscripts in our Appendix.)

[51] For the siege of Ptolemaïs we have consulted Sanuti, Herman, and a
manuscript relation. This relation, written in the French of the time,
appears to have been drawn from a letter from John de Vile, marshal of
the hospital of St. John, who wrote to his brother, William de Vile,
prior of St. Gilles, in Provence. Either John de Vile was at Ptolemaïs,
or he wrote from the evidence of some Hospitallers who had escaped the
swords of the Mussulmans, and had retired to the isle of Cyprus. This
manuscript chronicle, which we often use, is divided into twenty-two
chapters It is in the King’s Library, No. 1290.

[52] This fact is related in the chronicle we have before quoted.

[53] A manuscript account of the siege and taking of Acre by the
Saracens.

[54] This extraordinary fact is related in a discourse addressed to
Pope Nicholas IV. by Brother Arsene, a Greek priest, who had been on
a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the time of the siege of Ptolemaïs. This
account is found in Muratori; we have translated it entirely, as will
be seen in our Appendix.

[55] This fact is likewise attested by the chronicle of Herman
Cornarius, which we have already quoted.

[56] A German chronicle of Thomas Ebendorft relates the miraculous
stories that were circulated among the Saracens. According to this
chronicle, when a Christian expired, another issued from his mouth, _ex
ore_. There were two souls in every body; _in uno corpore duo fuerunt
hominis_.

[57] The Arabian chronicles speak of the sieur de Télema or Barthélemi,
who never ceased to provoke the fury of the Saracens. The Western
chronicles say nothing of him; one of them merely says that a Frank,
banished from Ptolemaïs on account of murder, took refuge with the
sultan of Egypt, and pointed out to him the means of taking the city.

[58] Wadin, the author of a chronicle entitled _Annales Minorum_,
tom. ii. p. 585, quotes a circumstance which St. Antonine relates in
the third part of his _Somme Historique_. After having said that the
greater part of the French Cordeliers were killed by the Saracens, he
adds these words: “But not one of the virgins of St. Claire escaped.”
The abbess of this order, who possessed a masculine spirit, having
learnt that the enemy had entered the city, called all her sisters
together by the sound of the bell, and by the force of her words
persuaded them to hold the promise they had made to Jesus Christ, their
spouse, to preserve their chastity: “My dear daughters, my excellent
sisters,” said she, “we must, in this certain danger of life and
modesty, show ourselves above our sex. The enemies are near to us; not
so much to our bodies as to our souls; these barbarians, who, after
having satisfied their brutal lusts upon all they meet, slay them with
their swords. In this crisis we cannot hope to escape their fury by
flight, but we can by a resolution, painful it is true, but sure. Most
men are seduced by the beauty of women; let us deprive ourselves of
this attraction, let us seek a preservative for our modesty in that
which serves as a cause for its violation. Let us destroy our beauty
to preserve our virginity pure. I will set you the example; let those
who desire to meet their heavenly spouse imitate their mistress.” At
these words she cut her nose off with a razor; the others did the same,
and boldly disfigured themselves, to present themselves more beautiful
before Jesus Christ. By these means they preserved their purity, for
the Saracens, on beholding their bleeding faces, conceived a disgust
for them, and killed them all, without sparing one.

[59] Quand il fut revenu au milieu de la cité, son dextrier fut molt
las, et lui-même aussi; le dextrier resista en contre les espérons, et
s’arresta dans la rue comme qui n’en peut plus. Les Sarrasins, à coups
de flèches, ruèrent à terre frère Guillaume; ainsi ce loyal champion de
Jesus-Christ rendit l’âme à son Créateur.

[60] Among the marvellous accounts to which the destruction of the
Christian colonies in Syria gave birth, history has preserved the
following:—“In the year 1291, the house of the holy Virgin at
Nazareth, in which she conceived the Son of God, was transported by
angels to the top of a little mountain in Dalmatia, on the shore of
the Adriatic Sea: three years afterwards it was transported to another
shore of the same sea, in a wood which belonged to a widow named
Loretto. There have been since built upon this spot a small city and a
magnificent church, which still preserve the name of this widow.”

[61] We are not able to add anything to the learned researches of M.
Raynouard upon the condemnation of the Templars. We refer our readers
to his work, and to our Appendix.

[62] This article of the will of Charles-le-Bel is related by Ducange.
It has been remarked that it is dated the 24th of October, 1324, and
that Charles died in 1327: we may suppose that the date is incorrect,
or that Charles-le-Bel did not perform his vow.

[63] We have before us a will made at this period, in which a gentleman
of the name of Castellen, already illustrious in the times of the
crusades, gives a sum for the expenses of the holy war. We regret we
are not able to publish the text of this document, which has been
communicated to us by the family of the testator.

[64] A memoir on the part which the Spaniards took in the crusades,
read at the Academy of Madrid, describes the labours, the adventures,
and wanderings of Raymond Lulli. The _Histoire Ecclesiastique_ of
Fleury may likewise be consulted.

[65] We have taken these particulars of Raymond Lulli from the Spanish
dissertations upon the crusades, which we have already quoted in the
preceding book.

[66] See what Sanuti himself relates in his book, from which we shall
take many extracts.

[67] It appears almost incomprehensible that our author should, in
these reflections, omit that which must strike every one else as the
principal cause of the change he affects to lament. In the days of
Peter the Hermit, a crusade was a golden day-dream, in which ambition
and cupidity indulged as strongly as piety or superstition. But
experience had not only proved it to be “a baseless fabric,” but a
cruel and a bitter scourge to all who had embarked in one. The first
Crusaders were visionary—later ones must have been mad.—TRANS.

[68] Et venoist à tous seigneurs moult grande plaisance, et
spécialement à ceux qui vouloient le temps dispenser en armes,
et qui adonc ne le tuvoient mie bien raisonnablement employer
ailleurs.—_Froissart._

[69] The eternal production of the Holy Ghost, which proceeds from the
Father and the Son.—TRANS.

[70] Our readers will observe by this, that the crescent, which has
generally, but falsely, been taken as the standard of all Saracens,
belongs to the Ottomans: it has never been mentioned in this history
before.—TRANS.

[71] The character of Constantine was worthy of being celebrated by
the epic muse. One of our most distinguished statesmen has undertaken
this glorious task.—See the poem of _The Last Constantine_, by M. de
Vaublanc. [We wonder our author is not here struck by the very palpable
reflection, that empires, kingdoms, and other institutions, which
have richly merited their fall, frequently expire under the immediate
rule of men who have not been instrumental in bringing about their
ruin—they are but the last step of a headlong declivity,—if they are
of adamant they must yield. The history of his own country and of ours
might have supplied him with hints for such a reflection.—TRANS.]

[72] For the siege of Constantinople, the very detailed account of
Gibbon, and the rapid but complete picture of M. Salabury, in his
_History of the Turkish Empire_, may be consulted.

[73] Olivier de la Marche, after giving a description of the festival
and of the divers spectacles offered to the eyes of the guests, adds:
“Such were the dainty mundane dishes of this festival, of which I will
leave others to speak, to give an account of a pitiable portion of it,
which appears to me of more consequence than the others,” &c.

[74] Olivier de la Marche says, that the duke of Burgundy had already
undertaken, three years before, to make a crusade against the Turks, in
an assembly held at Mons.

[75] Some modern historians who have spoken of these vows of the
knights, have exaggerated the fantasticalness of them. I find, among
others, in one of these historians, this sentence: “In short, what
gives the best idea of the devotion of these new Crusaders is, that one
vowed that if, _up to the moment of his departure, he could not obtain
the favours of his mistress, he would marry the first demoiselle he
should meet with having twenty thousand crowns_.” We have found nothing
like this in either Montstrelet or Olivier de la Marche, who are the
only authors of the times who speak of this festival.

[76] We smile when reading this strange scene of safe and ignorant
boasting; but if a Grand Turk ever indulges in mirth, we should think
it would have excited the laughter of Mahomet, if he chanced to hear of
it.—TRANS.

[77] He should have reminded him of glorious old Henry Dandolo.—TRANS.

[78] Nothing can be more unaccountable than such reflections! What did
these wretched outcasts know or care about the dangers of Europe? What
they sought was relief from the destitution they suffered; and if the
Turks had been in Europe, they would have enlisted with them.—TRANS.

[79] Jacques Cœur was condemned to death, and his property was
confiscated. Charles VII. contented himself with banishing Jacques
Cœur; but his property was not restored for a long time. Sixty of the
clerks of Jacques Cœur subscribed together, and made up a sum of 60,000
crowns, with which he retired to the isle of Cyprus and reëstablished
his trade. He founded an hospital for pilgrims there, and a Carmelite
convent, in which he was buried. Jacques Cœur built many houses at
Marseilles, Montpellier, and Bourges: among others, the beautiful house
which is now the municipality. It was Louis XI. who reinstated the
memory of Jacques Cœur. The inscription which is here mentioned must
have been also in the hospital for pilgrims at Cyprus.

[80] The saying of the Abbé de Vertot was but an expression of
politeness addressed to somebody who offered him documents, not in the
interests of truth, but in the interest of some families, who wished
that their names should be mentioned. In fact, if the documents they
offered him concerned the truth, they had nothing to do but to publish
them; now, we see nothing that has been published upon the siege of
Rhodes that proves that the Abbé de Vertot was mistaken, or forgot
anything of importance. It has not even been attempted to attack the
authenticity of the facts he relates by any criticism that has survived
to our times. There only remains the famous expression, _my siege is
completed_, without any one having sought to explain in what sense and
upon what subject this expression was made.

[81] Mahomet II. took Constantinople in 1453, and died in 1481.—TRANS.

[82] The reflections this passage gives birth to might fill pages; but
almost the most striking is, to observe how the operations of men’s
minds and industry, in their progress, obliterate that which is gone
before, and then again, after a season, which season has done its work
in spreading civilization and intelligence, return to old courses.
Though science is bringing us back to the old route to India, what
wonders the discovery of Vasco de Gama has effected for the progress of
the GREAT SCHEME!—TRANS.

[83] To what extent this sort of profanation is carried, even by
so-called civilized nations, may be seen by the story (we hope not a
true one) of Sir Sidney Smith and a party of English sailors, after
the siege of Acre, singing “God save the king,” in full chorus, in the
great mosque of Omar, at Jerusalem.—TRANS.

[84] This is the passage of the ordinance that relates to the banners
that were to be carried in procession:—“There shall be made, at the
same time, a handsome banner, upon which shall be painted our holy
father the pope, in his full pontificals, accompanied by several
cardinals and other prelates, being in pontificals, and mitred with
white mitres; the pope shall be on the dexter, the king on the
sinister, armed completely in white except his armour of state, which
shall be borne by his squire, accompanied by several princes and other
lords, all armed; on the other side of the said banner, histories and
other pictures, full of Turks and other Infidels.”

[85] All these documents are unpublished, and very voluminous; we will
give some extracts from them in our Appendix.

[86] Some writers have pretended, against the opinion of Bossuet
and David Hume, that Luther was not drawn into his opposition by a
motive of jealousy, and by a sentiment of self-love. In spite of their
objections, the fact is demonstrated. The learned Mosheim, in his
history, has not thought proper to justify Luther on this head; which
is besides of very little importance.

[87] The fruit became ripe in the age of Leo, and therefore he
generally has the merit of the cultivation. Nicholas V. promoted the
growth of intelligence and the arts quite as earnestly as Leo, and
with more prudence and less pretension. But this is a common error: no
age was ever more forgetful that all knowledge is progressive, than
the present; we enjoy much, and claim all the merit of it; but very
unjustly.—TRANS.

[88] This question, we think, will admit of another decision. M.
Michaud confounds the aristocracy with the middle class. When a
class becomes raised, by any means, to an hereditary superiority,
not purchased by individual merit of any other kind, manners are too
frequently set at defiance, and morals become corrupt. What he says
of the middle class is quite correct. The whole history of the world
cannot furnish such an instance of stability and prosperity, as is now
offered in England by the influence of an intelligent, prudent, moral
middle class.—TRANS.

[89] Will not much of this apply to all religions, all times, and
all countries? Success hallows everything—it makes rebellion,
revolution; assassination, patriotism; crimes, virtues. The Jesuits
are said to be the warmest religionists in the world. Could Mussulman
priests have expressed more delight in the advent and success of the
strongest despotism that Europe ever witnessed, than they have done
recently?—TRANS.

[90] I look for you six months hence on the shores of the Hellespont.

[91] The last capitulations are of the reign of Louis XV.

[92] This resignation is expressed in a very singular manner in an
extract from the manuscript of the library of Berne,—“Upon the cause
why the Saracens possess the Holy Land.”

Brother Vincent, in a sermon which he made, and which had for its text,
“Ecce ascendimus Hierosoleman,” gives three reasons for it:—“The
first,” said he, “is to excuse the Christians; the second is for the
confusion of the Saracens; and the third is for the conversion of the
Jews. As to the first reason, we ought all to know that there is no
Christian, however holy, who does not sin, and has not sinned, except
Jesus and his mother, the glorious Virgin Mary; and God is not willing
that Christians should sin in the land in which Jesus Christ, his son,
suffered the passion for the sins of men; and would account it a great
offence. But He is not thus offended by the Saracens; for they are
dogs. It would displease the king if his children or his knights should
make water in his chamber; but when a dog makes water there, he takes
no account of it.”

See _Catalogus Codicum MSS. Bibliothecæ Bernensis_, &c. tom. i. p. 79.

[93] This account of the crusades at first appeared in the _Mercury_,
and was afterwards printed in a little volume. It is now merged in
Voltaire’s _Histoire Générale_.

[94] Two memorials obtained prizes; one was by M. Hercen, the other by
M. Choisseul d’Aullecourt. Both are remarkable for erudition and spirit
of criticism; they marked out the way we have followed, and we take
pleasure in acknowledging all we owe them.

[95] When a person moderately read in French history remembers the
selfish, sensual, _wicked_ characters here so unduly eulogized, he may
forgive himself for the smile with which he must read the “impotent
conclusion.”—TRANS.

[96] Say, rather—rendered so infamous by his cruelties.—TRANS.

[97] The chronicle of Tours tells us, with the greatest simplicity,
that Charlemagne was called the _Great_ on account of his _great good
luck_; thus historians confounded, as the vulgar do, glory with fortune.

[98] These must be exceedingly remote times, indeed; such as we have no
account of. The oldest poems, the oldest histories, describe no such
state; the savage tribes of the forest and the desert have something
of a pride of ancestry, and are known as the sons of their fathers,
as well as Achilles was known as Pelides, or Gaul as the son of
Morni.—TRANS.

[99] It does not become us, as translators, to enter into controversy
with our original, otherwise, much might be said in reply to this
truly _conservative_ paragraph. But, as readers of history, we think
we may be permitted to observe, that _the advantages_ pointed out in
the first lines of it do not appear in the history of Venice. She
was never so great or so prosperous as when purely mercantile. When
territory was acquired, and nobility arose, corruption and decay soon
followed.—TRANS.

[100] And yet we cannot think that the custom of the Scotch _lairds_,
who assume the name of their estates, can be traced to this source,
although they do it in the same way. It seems probable that the French
_de_, generally admitted as a proof of gentility, at least, was adopted
upon such an occasion; but even this _de_ is subject to doubt, as
implying the lord _of_ the estate, country, or city, or the man who
raised himself into note _from_ the country or city.—TRANS.

[101] How was it, then, that William of Normandy, on his conquest of
England, two centuries before, created so many of his knights, earls
and barons, giving them titles of the places and estates he at the
same time bestowed? Philip-le-Hardi, no doubt, gave the newly-created
nobles means to support their honours and nobility was connected with
property, as it had been.—TRANS.

[102] In this suggestive passage we are sorry to find the prejudices
of our original inducing him to give a false colouring to his picture.
Monarchs granted no immunities to the people out of love for either
liberty or the people, but to gain their assistance against their
enemies, the great vassals or barons—thence the consequences; the
principle was carried so far, that the monarch was elevated into the
despot; and then another change ensued; when his power was so complete
that his old enemies looked upon him as the source of all honours
and riches, they united with him; both joined in their endeavours to
oppress and plunder the people; and then came the last phase.—TRANS.

[103] And yet he lived under Richelieu, in the nominal reign of Louis
XIII., and in the reign of Louis XIV.!—TRANS.

[104] Most political economists call man’s labour _property_; M.
Michaud has shown that the bulk of the people, under the feudal system,
paid society _labour_, _life_, and _liberty_; and yet he calls these
_nothing_!—TRANS.

[105] I do not recollect this prediction; but I perfectly remember
Montesquieu foretells that _France will perish by the sword_.—TRANS.

[106] What can this mean? Taxation is as old as governments of any
kind.—TRANS.

[107] Servez Dieu, et il vous aidera: soyez doux et courtois à tout
gentil-homme en otant de vous tout orgueil; ne soyez flatteur ne
rapporteur; car telles manières de gens ne viennent pas à gran le
perfection. Soyez loyal en faits et en dits; tenez votre parole; soyez
secourables à pauvres et orphelins, et Dieu vous le guerdonnera.

[108] Le Père Hélyot, in his _Histoire des Ordres Monastiques_, vol.
i. p. 263, expresses himself thus, when speaking of the order of St.
Lazarus:—“What is very remarkable is, that they could only elect as
grand-master, a leprous knight of the hospital of Jerusalem, which
lasted up to the time of Innocent IV., that is to say, about the year
1253, when, having been obliged to abandon Syria, they addressed the
pontiff, and represented to him, that always having had, from their
foundation, a leprous knight for grand-master, they found themselves in
the impossibility of electing one, because the infidels had killed all
the leprous knights of their hospital at Jerusalem. For this reason,
they prayed the pontiff to allow them to elect, for the future, as
grand-master, a knight who had not been attacked by leprosy, and who
might be in good health; and the pope referred them to the bishop of
Trascate, that he might accord them this permission, after having
examined if that could be done according to the will of God. This is
reported by Pope Pius IV., in his bull of the year 1565, so extended
and so favourable to the order of St. Lazarus, by which he renews all
the privileges and all the gifts that his predecessors had granted
to it, and gives it fresh ones. Here is what he says of the election
these knights ought to make of a leprous grand-master:—Et Innocentius
IV., per eum accepto, quod licet de antiquâ approbatâ et hactenùs
pacificè observatâ consuetudine obtentum esset, ut miles leprosus domûs
Sancti-Lazari Hierosolymitani in ejus magistrum assumeretur; verùm quia
ferè omnes milites leprosi dictæ domûs ab inimicis fidei miserabiliter
interfecti fuerant, et hujusmodi consuetudo nequiebat commodè
observari: idcircò tunc episcopo Tusculano per quasdam commiserat, ut,
si sibi secundùm Deum visum foret expedire fratribus ipsis licentiam,
aliquem militem sanum et fratribus prædictæ domûs Sancti-Lazari in ejus
magistrum (non obstante consuetudine hujusmodi de cætero eligendi)
auctoritate apostolicâ concederet.

[109] For serfs this might be a blessing, but for free labour it was
complained of as an evil. La Fontaine’s Cobbler, when describing his
state to the Financier, says:—

“Chaque jour amène son pain, Tantôt plus, tantôt moins: le mal est que
toujours (Et sans cela nos gains seraient assez honnêtes), Le mal est
que dans l’an s’entremêlent des jours Qu’il faut chômer; on nous ruine
en fêtes; L’une fait tort à l’autre; et monsieur le curé De quelque
nouveau saint charge toujours son prôné.”

Every day brings its bread; sometimes more, sometimes less: the worst
is that always (and without that our gains would be very tolerable),
the evil is, that in the year so many days creep in in which we must
be idle—we are ruined in festivals; one treads upon the heels of
another; and master curate is always introducing some new saint into
his sermon.—
TRANS.

[110] We are constantly withheld, by the respect due from translators
to originals, from making remarks in opposition to our author, when
he lays down the historian’s pen to get into the philosopher’s
chair. In the course of this chapter, our readers must have observed
much reflection that is not deep, and some passages that are
contradictory of others; but all has one great merit—_it is extremely
suggestive_.—TRANS.

[111] How could the clergy be said to pay for these wars? What became
of the vast sums raised by the sale of indulgences of all kinds? The
clergy had the collecting of the offerings of the faithful, which we
have seen was sometimes _profitable_. Besides, the barons and knights
paid for their own and their vassals’ equipments as long as they had a
coin left; then the king or leader, as Louis IX. did, sometimes helped
them.—TRANS.

[112] This is one of innumerable instances in the course of the work,
in which the reader must regret that M. Michaud was not aware he was
writing for the world; his views, and, I am sorry to say, his biasses,
are exclusively French.—TRANS.

[113] Surely he should have added to these, the human passions and
mundane interests of these ignorant, independent tyrants.—TRANS.

[114] Is not there always some such dominant principle in society? Is
not _money_ now as powerful as brute force or skill in arms were in the
middle ages?—TRANS.

[115] Nothing has been better said upon the influence of the clergy
and religion, in the middle ages, than that which we read in a work
entitled _Des Intérêts et des Opinions_, by M. Fievée:—“At a time
in which the Church imposed public penitences, whilst the tribunals
only ordered judgments by arms, we cannot see how the high police
could not have fallen into the hands of the ecclesiastics; and it was
because they alone exercised it, that, in the civil wars, fortunate
princes confided to the monks the guarding of princes, from whom
the fate of battle or treachery took the rights they possessed to
share the kingdom. It was necessary that the void left by the laws
should be filled up, or the state would perish; and the priests alone
enjoyed a moral authority sufficiently great to supply the weakness of
legislation;—exalted passions, more powerful virtues, great crimes,
great remorse; a proud independence, salutary fears; an excess of
force, and no regulations; courage in everything and everywhere: such
was, at this period, the state of society;—it is easy to perceive that
religion alone contended with barbarism.” We regret not to be able to
quote more than a fragment of a work filled with ingenious perceptions
and profound views, upon the march of civilization in the middle ages.

[116] The author of _A Memoir to serve as a New History of Louis
XII_. carries the first appearance of judicial reform in France to
the reign of that monarch. He has prosecuted on this subject learned
researches, and his work has given us much information upon the spirit
and the march of our legislation in the middle ages. Although we do
not always agree as to the consequences of the principles he develops,
particularly as to their application to that which is passing at
present, we take pleasure in rendering justice to the rare sagacity
with which he has cleared up questions which have been scarcely
perceived by our best historians.

[117] La Fontaine.

[118] And yet Marseilles had been a flourishing port for ages. In the
early crusades it did not belong to the French monarchy.—TRANS.

[119] “A skilful man, appointed to view and make a report of a thing,”
in this case; but it has several other meanings; as a man of worth,
probity, or even valour.—TRANS.

[120] Hotspur says to his lady—

“Swear me, Kate, like a lady, as thou art,
A good mouth-filling oath!”

The queen’s anathema upon Joinville, is, in the original, something of
this character.—TRANS.

[121] M. de Choiseul d’Aillecourt gives in his _Mémoire_ a very
extended nomenclature of the inventions brought from the East into
Europe by the Crusaders.

[122] And has not this been the case with all rich and prosperous
nations? What invariably follows this high state of opulence, of the
fine arts, and their attendant sensuality, is a question for every
great nation that is so circumstanced to ask itself.—TRANS.

[123] We are not positive whether the small-pox was known in Europe
previously to the Crusaders. Its introduction amongst us is frequently
attributed to them; and we observe, in reading the history of Mahomet
and his successors, many persons were marked with the scars left by
this disease. We wonder Michaud does not mention it.—TRANS.

[124] The Moors of Spain may be adduced as an example against this
opinion. It is true that the Moors of Granada cultivated the arts and
sciences for a long time, and with much success; but what became of
them when they returned to the coast of Africa?

[125] Lord Bolingbroke said: “After all, it is Nicholas V. to whom
Europe is obliged for its present state of learning” (Spence).—TRANS.

[126] The best answer to this is, that the too widely extended
Mussulman power was as much split into sections by discord and ambition
as Europe was. At the time of the first crusade there was no dread of
invasion from the East; and the invasion of the Christians produced
unanimity in defence of Mahomedanism.—TRANS.

[127] It is somewhat remarkable, that in this very interesting summary,
Michaud makes no mention of the exact sciences. We are generally
supposed to be indebted to the Arabians for great improvement, if
not for entire knowledge of mathematics; and although that knowledge
may have come to us through Spain, we cannot think mention of the
circumstance would have been out of its place here.—TRANS.

[128] Although we cannot pretend to be perfectly acquainted with all
the saints of these ages, we think this may be the same Paulinus who
had been bishop of Nola, and who, if not the first inventor of bells,
was the first who applied them to sacred purposes.—TRANS.

[129] M. Michaud says, we must consider this Itinerary as the first
account of the voyage to the Holy Land that we are in possession of.

Bordeaux, at the time of the pilgrims’ departure, was one of the
principal cities of the Gauls. It is situated at the mouth of the
Garonne, in the Bay of Biscay, and is strongly associated with English
history, as having been for a long time the residence of the Black
Prince, and the birth-place of the unfortunate Richard II.—TRANS.

[130] Our readers will judge, by two or three humorous traits in this
description, that our monk of Malmesbury had no objection to a joke.
The national characteristics here mentioned are curious, as proving how
long our northern friends have been jeered at for their _scratching
propensities_, and that the love of drinking was peculiar to the Dane
before it was reprobated by Hamlet:—

“This heavy-headed revel, east and west, Makes us traduced, and taxed
of other nations: They clepe us drunkards, and with swinish phrase Soil
our addition,”

[131] This was St. Hugh, consecrated in the year 1081, by Pope Gregory
VII., the same who, a short time after, received St. Bruno and his
companions, and gave them the solitude of the Chartreuse, to found a
new order there. The church of Tours was then governed by Rodolph II.

[132] Saladin here speaks of the battle of Tiberias.

[133] The count of Tripoli.

[134] To understand this phrase, we must remember that the author of
the letter compares the fortifications of Jerusalem to a _necklace_.

[135] This is a most extraordinary circumstance and proclaims to us not
only the fame of Saladin, the monarch of such a distant country, but
likewise the fear in which he was held in Europe. Notwithstanding his
greater proximity, we did not call our income-tax the _Buonaparte tax_,
as we might have done.—TRANS.

[136] Here is a little bit for the antiquaries of _Clerkenwell_, which
is, no doubt, meant by this.—TRANS.

[137] This is a valuable hint for poets, painters, and
novelists.—TRANS.

[138] This may appear improbable; but there is no doubt Richard was a
perfect horseman; and we very well remember Mr. Goldham, of the London
and Westminster volunteer light-horse, performing the broad sword
exercise with a sword in each hand, and his horse at speed, before
George III., in Hyde Park.—TRANS.

[139] Although our chronicler does not tell us so, we may presume
that when one of Richard’s troop cut down a Turkish horseman, he did
not leave his saddle long empty, and that such accessions enabled the
Christians to make an effective pursuit.—TRANS.

[140] If any limner had the skill to paint Richard’s countenance at
parting with such a friend as his “good sword,” this would make a fine
picture. The feelings, which must have nearly suffocated his lion
heart, would furnish matter for a poem.—TRANS.

[141] We give a translation of this extract because it is very curious;
but we have no faith in it with respect to the date; it appears to us
to be much more modern, and some parts of the language inconsistent
with others.—TRANS.

[142] But, as in most such cases, religion was rather the cloak than
the basis of ambition. The Mussulman empire, after the three first
caliphs, became too large and too complicated to be governed by a
simple Arab; and the miraculous conquests of the sect naturally made
the generals who achieved them ambitious of governing what they
conquered. The religious feud was but an excuse.—TRANS.

[143] This doctrine prevailed among the Ismaëlians of Persia
during nearly fifty years; but Djelah-ed Din, grandson of Hassan,
reëstablished the worship in its purity.

[144] Dai, an Arabian participle, signifies properly him who
calls,—_advocans_; and by extension it designates a person who
preaches to men, and invites them to embrace some doctrine. The title
of _dai_ was common in the first century of Islamism. Every sect had
its own.

[145] A passage of the historian Mirkhoud supports this account; he
informs us that Hassan, after getting possession of the castle of
Altamont, caused a canal to be dug, and brought water from a great
distance to the foot of his castle. Fruit-trees were planted round it,
and he encouraged the inhabitants to sow the land. It was thus that
the air of this place, which had been unwholesome, became pure and
salubrious.

[146] M. Jourdain, who addressed this interesting letter to me, has
published a work entitled _La Perse, ou le Tableau de l’Histoire du
Gouvernement, de la Littérature, de cet Empire, des Mœurs et Coutumes
des Habitants_. This work, in five vols. in 18mo., contains many new
notions and curious details, and does honour to the talent as well as
to the erudition of the Orientalist.

[147] The original of this fragment is in the _Bibl. Græc._ of
Fabricius, vol. vi, p. 405, and in the first volume of the _Imperium
Orientiale_ of Bandière. It is not in the editions of Nicetas.

[148] Coins worth two shillings and fourpence each.

[149] This is an extraordinary description of what must have been a
surprising work of art; but we cannot reconcile the idea we entertain
of a basilisk with that of the animal mentioned—we thought a basilisk
was a kind of serpent.—TRANS.

[150] Vincent Bellev. _Specul. Hist._ book xxx. chap. 5; Albert
Stad. _Chron._ fol. 202; Godefr. Monach. _Annal. ap. Frch. Collect.
Alberici_, p. 489; Sicard. _Chron. ap. Murat._ vol. vii. p. 623.

[151] Thomas de Cantipr. _De Apibus_.

[152] _Chron. Argent, ap. Urtii, Collect._ vol. i. p. 1.

[153] Jacob de Vorrag. _Chron. Januense, ap. Murat._ vol. ix. p. 46.
What proves the error of this date is, that Bizarre (_Hist. Genuens._),
who has copied this chronicle, places the event under the year 1212. I
do not know by what authority John Massey places it in his chronicle in
1210.

[154] See the _Chron. Anon._ of Strasburg, Godfrey the Monk, James of
Varagine, and Bishop Sicard.

[155] Alberic enters into copious details; and though this historian
generally sins on the side of extravagant credulity, his evidence
cannot, in this case, be doubted.

[156] Jacques de Vorrag.

[157] Albert de Stadt.

[158] _Anonymous Chronicle_ of Strasburg.

[159] This account is furnished by Alberic, and is confirmed by Thomas
of Champré and Roger Bacon.

[160] _Chron. Augus._; _Chron. Argent._

[161] Godfrey the Monk.

[162] _Opus Majus_, p. 254, ed. in fol.

[163] See Marin, _Storia Civile e Politica del Commercia de’
Veneziani_, vol. i. p. 206; Do Guignes, _Mémoires sur le Commerce des
Francs dans le Levant_, &c.; vol. xxxvii. of _Les Mémoires de l’Acad.
des Inscr._

[164] Videmus anno incarn. Di. 1213, infinitam puerorum multitudinem
spiritu deceptionis arreptos, cum signaculo crucis iter
Hierosolymitanum agressos fuisse, periisseque diversis in locis; et
maximam ex eis multitudinem per malefices quosdam Sarracenis in mari
venditos extitisse.—_Lib. de Apibus._

[165] Forsan vidistis aut audivistis pro certo quod pueri de regno
Franciæ semel occurrebant in infinitâ multitudine post quemdem malignum
hominem, ita quod nec à patribus, nec à matribus, nec ab amicis
poterant detineri, et positi sunt in navibus et Sarracenis venditi, et
non sunt adhuc 64 annis.—_Opus Majus_, p. 254.

[166] We promised to give in the Appendix some letters and the Bull of
this pope relative to the crusade of 1197; but as the contents of these
pieces are all alike, with the exception of some trifling expressions,
we shall confine ourselves to this one.

[167] Lord, know that he who shall not go to that land where God was
both living and dead, and who shall not take the cross beyond the
seas, shall have no chance of going into Paradise: he who has pity and
remembrance of the Lord, ought from war and vengeance to deliver his
land and his country.... Now, every valiant bachelor will go who loves
God and honours the holy mountain; they who act wisely will go to God,
the base and the vile will stay behind: they are blind, as I think, who
in their lives offer no assistance to God, and lose the glory of the
mount for such a trifle. God suffered for us on the cross; and will say
to us on the day to which all will come:—“You who helped me to bear my
cross, you shall go where angels dwell, and shall there see both me and
my mother Mary; and you from whom I have received nothing, descend all
into the depths of hell!”

[168] Mrs. Hemans’ beautiful poem, _Messages to the Dead_, is upon this
subject; and in a note, quoted from Mr. Brunton’s _Discipline_, she
says that the custom was not uncommon in the Highlands.—TRANS.

[169] In the regulations which were made for the Prussian converts, the
popes particularly condemned the funeral customs of these people. “The
neophytes,” say these regulations, “promise not to burn their dead,
and not to bury with them men, or horses, arms, clothes, or valuable
things. They will no longer have those impostors called _ligastons_,
who resemble pagan priests, and who, at funerals, praise the dead for
robberies, impieties, and other sins,” &c. These regulations enable us
to become acquainted with many of the ancient customs of the Prussians.

[170] This is a most remarkable resemblance to the word signifying bard
in Welsh, and to the name of the Welsh bard, _par excellence_.—TRANS.

[171] The reader may remember they were left in the camp with the duke
at Burgundy.

[172] This passage is very obscure.

[173] These instructions were inscribed in a register of the Chamber
of Accounts. To facilitate the reading of them to the public, some
impressions have been modernized.

[174] That is, the papers or accounts. We have given it exactly as it
stands, that our readers may the more plainly perceive the nature of
these documents.—TRANS.

[175] By which we may perceive that _dining_ at parish meetings is not
a custom confined to modern times.

[176] By which we learn that the charge of a notary was one livre per
diem.

[177] This must be Henry VII. from the dates, the contemporary princes,
and the character given of the monarch.—TRANS.

[178] How amusing, and, at the same time, wonderfully instructive it
is, to read these schemes of philosophers and statemen a hundred and
fifty years after they have occupied their thoughts by day and their
visions by night!—TRANS.

[179] Words intertwined with the letters of the cipher of the Grand
Seignor.

[180] This passage being the basis of all the privileges of the French
in Turkey, it often serves as a motive in the requests of ambassadors,
and as a foundation for the firmans of the Grand Seignor.

[181] Much more is wanting to show that the informations received
against the Templars furnished either moral or legal proof of the
existence of the Bafometic figures. The act of accusation says not one
word of it. There is no mention of it in the great procedure instituted
at Paris, or in the numerous depositions of the witnesses whom the
inquisitor and the commissaries of the pope questioned. Of the six
witnesses heard at Carcassonne, who declared that an idol was presented
to them, only two designated it in FIGURAM BAFOMETI. One, Gaucerand de
Montpesat, when brought to Paris, retracted all preceding confession;
there only then remained one single witness, of whose ulterior conduct
and end nothing is known. It is proved, that of the other four persons
interrogated at Carcassonne, Jean Cassauhas and Peter de Mossi
retracted their first deposition, and Jean Cassauhas was burnt in that
city.

[182] The pretended truncated cross, which M. Hammer believed he
recognised upon the medals, which otherwise have nothing to do with the
Templars, is nothing but the effect of the superposition of a hand upon
the upper part of an ordinary cross; this hand, which holds the cross
by the top, is found upon many medals and coins which M. Hammer himself
would not dare to attribute to the Templars.

[183] Raimundus de Agiles says of the Mahometans: In ecclesiis autem
magnis Bafumarias faciebant ... habebant monticulum ubi duæ erant
Bafumariæ. The troubadours employ Baformaria for mosque, and Bafomet
for Mahomet.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The History of the Crusades (vol. 3 of 3)" ***

Home