THE HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
Heinrich v. Sybel
PAST I.—HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES.
CHAPTER I.
Mahomet.—Project of the
Mahomedans.—Charlemagne.—Fall of the Empire.—Depressed State of the
World.—Pilgrimages.— The Church and the Pope.—Pope Gregory vii.—Pope Urban ii.—The First Crusade
CHAPTER II.
The First Crusaders.—Peter the
Hermit.—Arrival at Constantinople.—Quarrels among the
Turks.—The Emir Bagi Sijan.— Siege of Antioch.—Sufferings of the
Christians.—March upon Jerusalem.—Godfrey at Jerusalem.—Enthusiasm
caused by the Crusades.—Poetry of the Crusades.—The Taking of the Cross at
Clermont.—The Leaguer of Antioch.—The Gathering of the Paynim.—Godfrey of
Bouillon
CHAPTER iii.
Baldwin ii.—Quarrels among the Princes.—Luxury
of the Crusaders.—Zenki
the Bloody Prince.—Reaction against the Church.—Troubled State of Europe.—St.
Bernard.—The Second Crusade.—Wreck of the Second
Crusade.—Noureddin. —Caution of Noureddin.—Rise of Saladin.—Saladin's Supremacy.—Decline of the Frankish States.—Danger of
the Christians
CHAPTER iv.
The West rises to
Arms.—Preparations in the East.—Siege of Ptolemais.—Frederick Barbarossa.—Death
of Frederick Bar-barossa.—Quarrels among the Princes.—Richard Coeur-de Lion.—Negotiations.—Treaty
with Saladin.—Fresh Outbreak of War.—Three Years' Armistice.—Failure of the
Crusades. —Relations between the East and West.—Destruction of Eastern
Civilization.—Triumph of Christianity
PART II.—LITERATURE
OF THE CRUSADES.
CHAPTER
I.
The Emperor Alexius.—Urban
II.—Stephen of Blois.—Anselm of Ripemont.—Bohemund and Others.—Raymond of Agiles.— Gesta Ersjicorum.—Tudebod.—Guibert, Abbot of Nogent
—Baldric, Archbishop of DoL—History of the Holy War.— Henry of
Huntingdon.—Fulco, Gilo, and the Monk Robert.— Fulcher of
Chart res.—Liziard of Tours.—William of Malmes-bury.—Ordericus Vitalis.—Rodolph
of Caen.—Ekkehard of Urach.—Dodechin
CHAPTER II.
Albert of Aix.—Probable Origin of
the Narrative.—Profusion of Detail.—Discrepancies in his
Narrative.—Richness of Inven-. tion.—No dependence on his Facts
CHAPTER III.
William of Tyre.—His Birth and
Education.—General Character of the Work.—Character of William of
Tyre.—Narrative of the First Crusade.—Its defective
colouring.—William of Tyre a Mediator between Legend and History
CHAPTER IV. Epochs of a later
Literature. —Scholasticus Oliver.—Vincent, Bishop of Beauvais.—The Luneburg
Chronicle.—Matthew of Westminster.—John of Ypres and
others.—Platina.—Legends of the Crusades.—Ariosto.—Jacob
de Vitiy.—Matthew of Paris. —Petrarch.—The Treasurer Bernhard.—Archbishop
Antonine of Florence.—Benedictus Acoolti.—George Nauclerus.—Paulua Emilias of
Verona.—Thomas Fuller.—Father Maimbourg.— Voltaire.—Do Guignes.—Mailly.—Maier, Heller, and Haken. —Mills.—Lebeau.—St.
Maurice.—Wilken.—Von Raumer.— Van Earn pen.—Schlosser.—Michaud.—Capefigue
HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES.
CHAPTER
I.
The subject of these pages, that series of great wars which we designate as
the Crusades, is one of the greatest revolutions that has ever taken place in
the history of the human race. They have been repeatedly described in various
instructive and celebrated works,
and without doubt there are few who have not heard of those armed pilgrimages
to the Holy Land; of the fame of Peter the Hermit and Godfrey of Bouillon, of
the feats of Richard the Lion-hearted, or of the sufferings of St. Louis.
Nevertheless the interest and importance
of such events is, from its very nature, inexhaustible.
During their progress a universal change takes place in the condition of the
nations involved in them; and every new commentator must find fresh subject for
interest and instruction according to his own requirements and inclinations. This may also be said of the
wars of the Persians, of the migration of the northern hordes, or, after them,
of the Reformation and the French Revolution. Each of these events, like the
Crusades, marks a new epoch in the state of Europe; and it shall
be my task to place these last plainly before you under this aspect, although,
with such an extensive subject, this narrative can at best
only assume the proportions of a slight sketch.
We cannot understand the importance of the Crusades if we look upon
them as a mere sequel and extension of the pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Such a
complete change in the history of the world does not arise out of such
insignificant causes. The Crusades must be regarded as one great portion of the struggle between the two great
religions of the world, Christianity and Mahomedanism; a struggle which began
in the seventh century, on the confines of Arabia and Syria, and embraced in
quick succession all the countries round the Mediterranean,
and after thousands of years and changes has disturbed our own century,
as it did that of Gregory VII. The history of the human race records no contest more violent or more protracted than this. There is
none which filled a greater arena; none which roused the passions or the capabilities of the people to a greater degree. When the prophet Mahomet
began his career at Mecca, Arabia was hardly known to the rest of the world.
Fifty years after his death his followers were already
ruling the land from the Indus in the East, the Caucasus in the North, to the
coasts of the Atlantic in the West. The world never
before saw a quicker or more complete invasion. Mahomet had succeeded in
setting the ardent imaginations of his countrymen on
fire with the idea of a holy war. In short, vigorous sentences, he preached to
them the greatness and power of one Almighty God. He did not reason or explain,
but he carried men away with him. He painted the rewards of Paradise and the
tortures of the damned in glowing colours; and his whole
religion was contained in these words: Obedience to God and to His Prophet. His
teaching was the announcement of a new rule, without dogmatic mystery, and
without any philosophical foundation. Man could alone be just in that he learned God's will from the Prophet, and then fulfilled the Prophet's ordinances. God does not deliver, but he rules; and religion is not to become one with him, but to
obey him implicitly. Thus, his mission from the first was not one of instruction, but of subjugation; unbelievers were rebels, who were to be
smitten with the edge of the sword, and forced to conform to his doctrines, or to pay tribute. War necessarily arose out of the first
principles of his religion; and no sooner was he acknowledged in Mecca than he
sent threatening admonitions to the Persian King and the Byzantine Emperor. The
scorn with which they answered the unknown fanatic,
was met by the most furious attacks; neither Roman nor Persian troops were
able to withstand the masses of brave men, which, with the rapidity of
lightning, inexhaustible, and with exulting contempt of death, spread in
torrents over the country. They had no other thought than fanaticism for the Caliph, no other delight than war against
the infidel, no other hope than entrance into Paradise. They were men with but
few wants, brave in battle, and insensible to fatigue, easily put in motion,
and equally untiring; inaccessible both to luxury and to civilization. They dwell, says one of their poets, beneath the shadow of
their lances, and cook their food upon the ashes of the conquered towns.
In the year 715 these hordes had overrun all Western Asia, the whole
northern coast of Africa, and Spain, even beyond the Pyrenees.
Muza, the ambitious conqueror of Spain, conceived
the plan, which, though vast, was not too extensive for men accustomed to
subdue the world; —by two great simultaneous attacks to render the whole of Christendom subservient to the Prophet.
For this purpose an army was to advance from Asia Minor towards Constantinople,
and another to march across the Pyrenees upon the empire of the Franks; then
from east and west to unite their triumphant forces in Rome, the centre of
Christianity. Luckily for Europe, Muza at this time fell into disgrace with the
Caliph, and his great project was only carried into effect piecemeal, and
consequently without success. He began by attacking Constantinople, and blockaded that town for three years by sea and land. The Emperor
Leo III. defended himself with great courage, destroyed the Mahomedan fleet
with the newly invented Greek fire, and at last, in 718, forced their army to
retire. Ten years then elapsed before the empire of the Franks was
attacked in the west. In Muza's time this attack might have been successful,
because the Franks were then torn by internal discord. Since then, however,
Charles Martel, one of the bravest warriors of any time, had taken his place at the head of the Frankish empire; he beat the Arabian and
African hordes in six hotly contested battles at Poitiers. The people of the
East, says one of the Spanish historians, the German race, men deep-chested,
quick-eyed, and iron-handed, have crushed the Arabs. After this
double failure the great onslaught of Islam was checked. Christendom had suffered much; it had
lost its birthplace, Palestine, and its earliest Churches in Asia Minor and Africa; but it had saved its existence, and soon after Charles Martel's
death it found a representative of its unity and power in his grandson
Charlemagne, who, as Emperor of Western Christendom, extorted some
acknowledgment even from the Caliph himself. The
struggle between the two religions now remained in abeyance for some centuries,
except some insignificant feuds on the frontiers of
Spain, in the Italian Isles, and on the coast of Asia Minor, as symptoms of the
smouldering embers of discord.
From this moment the inward development of the two
worlds totally opposed. In the Mussulman country the religious
element had thrown all others into the shade; religious warfare was the sole
occupation of the inhabitants, and supremacy of the Caliph was the sole basis of political life. After the ninth century, this distinctive
peculiarity was broken down on all sides. Earthly enjoyments, secular culture, and national independence asserted their power; the arts
and sciences flourished extensively ; the dominion of the Caliph was broken, and limited to spiritual supremacy; on every
side temporal institutions sprang up under and
around him; political, intellectual, and manufacturing interests displaced the enthusiasm for the war of
faith. Islam as a conquering religion lost its terrors, and its warlike power
fell into gradual decay. This change from fanaticism to culture, was in reality
the greatest gain to the Mahomedans; and to this period belongs nearly
everything effected by Islam for the real or lasting
interests of humanity, for intellectual progress and the
refinement of manners.
In the West, things took a different course. While the Mahomedans
attained political life and intellectual progress at the expense of
religious vigour and unity, the European nations, from
the ninth to the eleventh century, confined themselves more and more
exclusively within the narrow ecclesiastical paths. This tendency is visible
even in Charlemagne. The worldly, political, and
national elements are brilliantly represented in his reign
: the imperial dignity was restored and endowed with unprecedented power; and the Pope of Rome was subservient
to him like any other bishop of his dominions. Science of every description was
fostered, ancient Roman writers imitated, old German
heroic legends collected. But with all this Charlemagne looked upon his
imperial mission as more particularly a religious one. On the first Diet
after his coronation, he orders, that now the imperial dignity is restored, all men are to entertain the true belief in the Trinity, and to lead a godly life in Christ. Wherever he discovered, within the limits of the Empire, defects in church government, remains of
heathenism, or schismatic tendencies, he opposed them with the whole weight of
the power of the State. He had no foreign war more at heart than that against
the barbarians, that is to say, the heathens, the Saracens in
Spain, the pagan Germans, Danes, and Slaves. Where he conquered he converted;
and although the spreading of Christianity was useful in consolidating the temporal power of the State, yet the first feeling was that
the Emperor was lord of the world, and the
defender of true belief on earth.
The clergy and all ranks of the people held the same ideas. We are
accustomed now to look upon religion as a purely personal and intimate feeling,
the closest, and at the same time freest intercourse of each individual soul
with God, a conviction of the heart, which is only of value in so far as it is
of inward and spontaneous growth. In those ancient times men strove, it is
true, to attain this frame of mind; but they were convinced that the only true path to it was by the outward observances of the Church.
These therefore were enforced by penal laws, and force of arms; religion was
looked upon above all as the direct command of God; and whoever did not profess the true faith, was persecuted
as a rebel against the majesty of the Lord.
Soon after the death of Charlemagne, the Empire fell to pieces, the
organization of the State was dissolved, and anarchy spread over the
whole of Charlemagne's former
dominions, Germany, France, and Italy. It is true that Germany raised herself
from this second period of disorder, to unity and power, under the great
Imperial House of Saxony, under Henry I., and Otho the Great. For a moment the
glory of the Carlovingians seemed renewed; half Europe
recognized the power of the Emperor of Germany, and under his vigorous
protection, German song and the study of antique art put
forth rich blossom. But this edifice was fated to last no longer than that
raised by the Carlovingians. No sooner had Otho the Great
closed his eventful career, than one country after
another tore itself away from the Imperial supremacy, France and Burgundy, Italy and Poland, the Wends and the Danes. Meanwhile none of these
succeeded in establishing for themselves any lasting
government; the monarchies sank into a state of
complete impotence; unruly petty tyrants trampled all
social order underfoot, and all attempts after scientific
instruction and artistic pleasures, were as effectually crushed by this state of general insecurity, as the external well-being and material life of the people. This was a dark and stormy period
for Europe, merciless, arbitrary, and
violent. In Germany a few powerful sovereigns maintained a commanding
position for a time: such were Conrad II. and Henry III., men of iron will,
like their followers. But with them the imaginative impulse, the bright hope,
and the mental activity, which distinguished the days of Otho the Great, were wanting. It is a sign of the prevailing feeling of misery
and hopelessness, that when the first thousand years of our era were drawing to
a close, •the people in every country in Europe looked with certainty for the
destruction of the world. Some squandered their wealth in
riotous living, others bestowed it for the good of their souls on churches and
convents: weeping masses lay day and night around the altars; some looked
forward with dread, but most with secret hope, towards the burning of the earth and the falling in of heaven. Their actual condition was so
miserable, that the idea of destruc tion was relief, spite of all its terrors.
In this hopeless and depressed condition of the world, men's thoughts
turned, as is always the case in any great tribulation, towards Heaven, for
God's salvation and refreshment. All other interests had become worthless; no
possession and no existence was safe from rude force; nowhere was to be found,
after the splendid line of the Othos had passed away, a character or a great idea capable of exciting the imagination of a noble heart. There was nothing for the deadened race
of mankind to hold to, save religion: and, at last, a state of feeling arose,
full of the bitterest hatred against this earthly
world; and, burning with desire for the joys of Heaven, men fled from their
families, occupations, and neighbours; they tore themselves from all worldly
ties: the son abandoned his parents, the husband his wife; the vassal left his feudal lord, and the prince his people. Monasteries were
more filled than ever; new orders were instituted, the rules and practices rose
to the highest degree of asceticism and penance. Monastic
seclusion soon ceased to satisfy the growing desire
to fly from the world and those who dwelt in it. Men sought the depths of the
forest, the loneliness of mountains, or the untrodden wilderness, in order to
mortify the flesh in solitude, and turn their thoughts, with undisturbed zeal, on immediate intercourse with God, his angels, or
his saints. They awoke, with convulsive terror, to the
consciousness of their sins; they spent night after night in breathless
pleadings for enlightenment and grace; their fancy drove them in perpetual
change, through images of infernal torture, and divine
beatitude, till at length a moment of exhaustion and ecstasy
succeeded,—refreshing and dazzling visions gave to the struggling heart a certainty of union with God. In order to understand the character
and deeds of that time, we must not for a moment lose sight of this mystical
excitement, full of contempt of this world; we must not forget that it was the
only thing that touched the imagination of that century, and that it was then a common and everyday occurrence. More
particularly in France, Spain, and Italy, the three countries which spoke the
Roman tongue, this feeling was spread through all classes, and pervaded every
order. Every happiness, every earthly enjoyment, was
deemed dangerous. The body was looked upon as the dead weight which hindered
the soul in its flight to heaven. Men turned with contempt from
science and art. " Upon such toys," wrote the celebrated English Bishop Lanfranc, " upon such toys we have wasted our youth, but now we have cast them from us." The duties
of a patriot, a subject, and a citizen, lost their value and power, under the
ruling passion of that age, because they belonged to this mortal and corrupted
world. Men no longer had any perception
of that plain human feeling which sees God's service in useful labour, and
which feels the support of God's presence in the monotony of everyday life.
Such feeling was not enough for those overheated imaginations. They wanted to
see the Divinity with mortal eyes, and to grasp the
mystery with the bodily senses.
Owing to the condition of public feeling, pilgrims and palmers became more
numerous than ever before. There was, indeed, hardly any other intercourse between nations; commerce hardly existed, and no one thought of
travelling for pleasure, as the smallest journey was attended with difficulties
and dangers of every kind. But many thousands of people went every year to the
famous Abbeys of Clugny or Monte Casino, to the graves of the Apostles, to Rome, or to St. Jago di Compostella; and, above all, crossed
the sea to Palestine, to the land which Christ trod, and to the rock which is
said to have been his grave. High and low took part with equal zeal. Within the space of thirty years, we find in Jerusalem two Counts of Flanders,
one Count of Toulouse, one Duke of Normandy, and a number of German bishops,
all filled with the same belief, that they stood on the threshold of Heaven,
and all equally horror-struck that unbelieving Mussulmans were
desecrating this holy place. When religious enthusiasm had impregnated mankind
to such a degree, anger against the unbeliever arose
of its own accord, and war against the false religion appeared to be the most
holy and praiseworthy action. Wherever the war against Islam had lasted, it now gained fresh vigour and
life from the quantities of volunteers who flocked to victory, or
death and Paradise, under
the banner of the Cross. l3urgundians, Provencals, and Normans, helped the Spanish king to besiege the Caliph of
Cordova, and to take Toledo. The Normans from Naples settled themselves in
Sicily; and the fleets of Pisa and Genoa, decked with Papal flags, stormed the
harbour of Palermo. Thus the Christian faith became
in time the badge of a great system of national defensive and offensive
alliance, which was animated by a sacred fire, and eager for deadly warfare
against all unbelievers. If •from the seventh to the ninth centuries, Islam had harassed the Christian nations by its vigorous aggressions, now, in the eleventh, came the day of reckoning, in a no
less violent attack, on the part of Christendom, upon the whole Mahomedan
world.
Every great war must have a commander-in-chief
to direct, and a ruler to command it. In the days of Charlemagne and Otho,
Christendom possessed such a leader in the person of the Emperor. Now that was
at an end, for the Imperial power was barely tolerated by the German and
Italian nobility, and not recognized at all by the rest of
Europe. To fill up this void, and give to the Latin world a new head, the same
ecclesiastical spirit which bad roused the war against Islam was now at work.
Temporal sovereigns did not appear capable of leading
mankind to salvation: they were worldly and sinful, like the rest. There existed on earth but one institution in which the Spirit of
God constantly and actively manifested itself; this was the
Church with its servants, and its head, the Pope. They, and they alone, were
called upon to govern the earth. Now that the Emperor
had become incapable of representing the Christian
world, the Pope was quite ready to grasp the temporal as well as the
spiritual power, and in the character of chief military commander of Europe to
begin the crusade against Mahomedan Asia. Pope Gregory VII. was the first Pope
who assumed this position in the face of Europe in its full force and extent.
Gregory was without doubt one of the most remarkable
men of any age. Never, as far as we know, has religious enthusiasm been united
with such far-sighted policy, or spiritual fanaticism with such pronounced
talents for government. Hilde-brand, as he was originally named, was the son
of a poor carpenter in a small Tuscan town. He received his first instruction
in Rome, but soon fled in disgust from the lawless profligacy of that town to
the retirement of the convent. There, like hundreds of others, he had prayed, watched, and scourged himself, and had experienced
ecstatic delights, tearful penitence and
humiliation, had shared the belief that only by thus renouncing the world could Heaven be gained. An unexpected occurrence however soon
gave a different impulse to his life. The Church was in the same state of
disorganization as the temporal power; the Emperor Henry III., bent upon
enforcing order and discipline, did not hesitate to intervene even in Rome, deposed three contending Popes, and appointed their successor
himself. The young monk, who was personally attached to one of the three
dethroned Popes, accompanied him into exile in Germany, equally indignant at
the corruption of the Church on the one hand, and the attempts to cure it by the profane
intervention of Imperial power on the other. He had brought
the idea with him from his monastery that all the powers of this world were as
nothing compared to the glory of the Church. That a layman, even though the Emperor himself, and with the most praiseworthy intentions,
should dare to dictate to the Church, filled Hilde-brand with holy indignation;
and this it was that suddenly aroused his eminently practical nature from the
unproductive contemplation of monastic life. Not to flee from
the world, but to redeem it by absolute submission to the purified Church, became henceforth the task of his existence. In the year 1048 news came
to Germany of the death of the new Pope, and the Emperor instantly named the Bishop of Toul as the future head of the Church.
gregory vii.
He—Leo IX.—whose honest and unassuming piety was at first alarmed by
the difficulties of his new calling, turned to Hildebrand for help, and
requested him to come to Rome as his adviser. The answer
was a resolute refusal. He could serve no Pope who held his office by virtue of
an Imperial decree. His personal character and appearance were even then so
commanding that the Pope trembled before the simple monk. Leo promised to go a barefooted pilgrim to Rome, and there to submit to the
canonical election. Hildebrand, mollified by this, became henceforth the sopl of the Papal government, till he ascended the
throne of the Vatican himself in the year 1073.
Scarcely had he grasped the reins of
ecclesiastical government when this carpenter's son
developed such a universal genius for riding as has only since been displayed
in the two greatest self-made men of modern history—Cromwell and Bonaparte. He
had the knowledge, the ability, and the will, to do
everything. He became a reformer of the Church, a statesman, and a conqueror, a
demagogue and a diplomatist, all with equal vigour and masterly skill. While
his conviction rested unshaken on a steadfast belief in God's directing power, he knew that God compassed his ends by means of human
agencies, and was unceasing in his endeavours to employ every earthly means for the consolidation of his spiritual power. In the height of his enthusiasm he went further than
any man had dared to dream of doing before him. " All princes," he
wrote, " shall kiss the Pope's foot; he alone shall wear the imperial insignia; he alone is answerable towards God for the sins of
kings." " When Christ," he again wrote, " said
to Peter, * Feed my sheep/ he did not except kings; what king has ever
performed miracles like so many popes and lowly monks
?" He accordingly demanded, on no other title
than this religious one, the oath of allegiance from
the King of England, declared Spain to be the property of St. Peter,
summoned the Kings of Poland and the Russian Czars to appear before his
tribunal, declared the Emperor Henry IV. of Germany deposed, and made his
antagonist Rudolph promise homage and allegiance to him. For these schemes,
which embraced the whole of Europe, he strengthened himself by retirement and daily sincere and anxious prayer. " I behold
myself," he wrote to the Abbot of Clugny, " so sunk in sin that
prayer from my lips is of no avail. My life, indeed, is blameless,
but my actions are of this world; therefore do I entreat you beseech the devout to pray for me." A longing after the
contemplative quiet of the cloister dwelt in the mind of the proud prince of
the Church amid the struggle
for supremacy in the world.- it
was the root of his nature and the source of his power. Fortified anew by devotion, he again rushed into the thick of the fight, in
order to enforce by worldly weapons that obedience which he had already demanded from kings as his due. He gained adherents
in all countries, and bound them by solemn oaths and military organization to
follow his guidance. In Germany Duke Guelf, of Bavaria,
consented to hold his dominions on feudal tenure from the Pope. In
France a knightly army was assembled for his service by the great Counts of
Burgundy and Toulouse and the renowned Abbot of Clugny. In Italy he relied on
his alliances with the Norman Duke of Naples and the Countess Matilda of Tuscany, while zealous fanatics excited the
populace of the Lombard cities in his behalf. In a word, Gregory did not for an instant rest satisfied with establishing a universal supremacy over crowned heads, but without
hesitation took their subjects into his own allegiance; he was on
the high-road to the destruction of all the existing
governments of the-world, in order that he might embody them in his great
spiritual dominion. This was but the commencement of strife, attack, and
turmoil; and, as was to be expected, opposition to such an
unheard-of system arose in every quarter; but the plan of the
edifice was drawn by a mighty hand, and the temporal supremacy of the Popes was
announced as a new spiritual and warlike impersonation
of Christianity.
This power at once turned its attention to foreign affairs. Gregory had
counted, not only upon the obedience of the Latin nations, but also upon bringing back the Greek schism to its allegiance; and then, upon leading both combined to a decisive attack
upon Islam. A motive was furnished by a warlike movement which broke out in the
bosom of Islam itself. At two points its dominions had been invaded by unruly
hordes of half-savage tribes, who, like the Arabs in
Mahomet's time, had no wish but perpetual warfare, no culture beyond fierce
religious zeal. Among the Kabyles of the desert in Northern Africa arose the
empire of the Morabites, who, after subjugating in rapid campaigns, the whole
district between the Syrtes, the Sahara, and the ocean,
burst upon the Christians of Spain in a furious invasion. Simultaneously, the
wild tribes of the Seljukes, from the steppes of Bulgaria, poured in upon Asia, laid waste the possessions of the Caliph of
Bagdad, and advanced on Asia Minor, and the dominions of
the Greek Emperor, whom they, in a few campaigns, drove across the Hellespont,
in disgraceful flight. It seemed as if the times of Muza had returned, and Rome was again to be threatened both from the East and from the
West. But Gregory VII. felt himself more secure than Charles Martel, and resolved to anticipate the attack. In France he pleaded, with great effect, to obtain assistance for the Spaniards; in Rome he got together, in 1074, an army of 50,000 men, faithful
followers of St. Peter, whom he intended to lead in person to the relief of
Constantinople, and the destruction of the Turks. He called upon the German
Emperor, Henry IV., with whom he was still at peace, to help him in
this undertaking, and at the same time expressed his intention of first
bringing back the Greeks and Armenians to the unity of the Church
of Rome; after which he should lead the triumphant army to the Holy Sepulchre
at Jerusalem. It affords a fresh evidence, that with all his enthusiasm, the
turn of his mind was eminently practical and calculating, that he should look
upon the Holy Sepulchre only as the final ornament of victory, whilst the task
he saw before him was the gradual extension of conquest, and the establishment of a solid foundation in Constantinople,
whence the expulsion of the Turks from Asia Minor and Armenia, and his own triumphal entry into Jerusalem, would follow as a matter of course. It was
the first, and for many subsequent
centuries the last time that so vast and so methodical
a plan of attack upon Asia had been conceived in Christian Europe.
Gregory VII. was not, however, destined to reap these laurels. Like Napoleon, seven hundred years later, he was to begin his career
with dreams of oriental supremacy, and then, through life,
to devote all his energies to the subjugation of the West. Within a few months,
the dispute with Henry IV. broke out, in which the
Pope was victor, and saw the successor of Charlemagne vanquished and trembling
at his feet, while all Europe was convulsed with civil war. Gregory did not
live to see the end; he was forced to fly from Rome before the renewed power of
the Emperor, and died during his flight, under the protection of the Normans of Naples. Meanwhile, the Turks in Asia made
alarming progress; they took Mecca and Jerusalem. The pilgrims complained bitterly of the excesses committed by the brutal soldiery at the tomb of the Saviour. The Greek Emperor Alexius sent the most pressing entreaties for help to the Pope,
saying, that if he did not wish to see 9 Christianity perish in the East, he must render him assistance. Urban
II., an acute and subtle man, now sat on Gregory's
throne; not to be compared with his predecessor in energy and large mould of
mind, but penetrated with the same religious views, filled with ambition, and, although more pliant, his superior adroitness in the management of details rendered him, on the whole, more successful than Gregory. He thought it a religious triumph to stir up the son of Henry IV.
to rebellion against -his father, and thus to deal a terrible
blow to the Imperial power; he had prevailed upon
himself to forego for a time his pretensions to political supremacy in England and Spain, and thus to obtain the ecclesiastical obedience of
those monarchs. By these means his influence, in the year 1094, was more
generally recognized and honoured than
Gregory's had ever been. When, in the summer of that year, a Greek embassy was
sent to him, he decided on using his mighty influence against the East, and
calling upon the Latin nations to make war upon Islam.
We see here a great difference between the two men. Urban did not think of taking the command and leading the attack
in person. But that was not the chief distinction: in like manner as he had
given up that immediate temporal supremacy, which Gregory had insisted upon in all lands, he left out of his warlike plans those great ideas of
military method and politico-ecclesiastical conquest upon which Gregory had
impressed the stamp of his character. Urban viewed the task by
the light of that mystical piety, which, disregarding
all earthly considerations, and setting aside all earthly ambition, strives to follow the straight path to the heavenly Paradise. After making a preliminary announcement of his intentions in a
Council at ^Piacenza, he crossed the Alps late in
the autumn to the south of France,
and held a great Council at Clermont on French affairs
; at the end of this, he called upon the people ,of Europe to aid him, not in
delivering Eastern Christendom, but the Holy Sepulchre.
According to worldly ideas, such an attempt on Jerusalem was quite illusory
without a firm footing in Constantinople or Egypt; it could not have
the slightest prospect of lasting success unless a fatal blow could thence be
aimed at the whole edifice of the Turkish Sultanate. But
Urban's hearers were not disposed to listen to the wisdom of this world. In
drunken religious zeal, they revelled in the idea of rescuing the tomb of the
Saviour from the defilement of the heathen; they looked upon Christ enthroned in heaven as their leader, and hoped to see the gates of
the heavenly Jerusalem thrown open at the same time as those of the earthly.
Fifty thousand warriors had volunteered to carry out Gregory's reasonable plan;
at Urban’s enthusiastic appeal more than three hundred thousand
men fastened the Cross upon their shoulders. In a few months the cry, "
God wills it," had flown from Clermont over half Europe,—throughout France
and England, Italy and
Scandinavia; with one passionate outburst the people sought to free themselves
from the pressure* of earthly wretchedness. They said, God had never permitted
a time like the present, filled with blasphemy, disunion, and immorality;
civil war was raging, truth and
honesty had ceased to exist, famine and earthquakes had threatened destruction.
In the depth of this misery the Lord had sent salvation.
The time was fulfilled, of which it is written, " Whoso will go with me,
let him take up his cross and follow me." Since
the creation of the world, and the mystery of the crucifixion, writes a chronicler, nothing had been seen like this Crusade, which was a work of
God, not of man. On the 4th of April, 1095, says another, fire fell from heaven
like small stars, far and wide over all lands, since which
time France and Italy had gone armed to the Holy Sepulchre without any temporal
commander, led only by the spirit of the Lord. In a moment all evil had
been banished from the Christian world, since Christ had once
more vouchsafed his saving presence as their leader and Lord of Hosts.
Earthquakes had ceased; a year of unexampled plenty followed the scarcity;
peace and union returned among believers. Filled with these hopes, the western
nations entered upon the First Crusade.
CHAPTER II.
When Pope Urban II. announced the Crusade at Clermont in November, 1095, he
secured to himself the leading position in the enterprise, by naming the Bishop
Adhemar of Puy as his Legate and representative with the army, and by officially announcing to the Greek Emperor
Alexius the forthcoming help against the Turks.
Preparations on a large scale were making in most kingdoms of Europe. In Lorraine, Duke Godfrey of Bouillon, a religious and brave but
not very wise man, was collecting a numerous army. In
France, the brother of King Philip, Count Hugo of Vermandois, and the warlike
Count Robert of Flanders, were enlisting men; the unruly and rash Duke Robert
of Normandy mortgaged his whole territory in order to raise a splendid troop of French and English knights; besides these, Count
Stephen of Blois, possessor of as many castles as there are days in the year, a stately, proud, but morally weak man; and lastly, as leader of all the Provencals and Gascons, Count Raymond of Toulouse, more versed
in war and richer, but also more obstinate and violent than all the rest.
Italy, Pisa, and Genoa equipped their fleets, all the Norman knights of Naples
ranged themselves under Bohemund of Tarentum, a lean, pale,
ambitious prince, who was for ever silently forming comprehensive but
constantly changing schemes, always at work and yet always patient, until the
moment arrived for sure and victorious action; he was perhaps the only man
in that army who had nothing of the devout pilgrim spirit, and only thought
how he might on the way entrap his old enemy the Greek Emperor, and at all
events found a splendid kingdom for himself in the East. Everywhere the
greatest activity prevailed: princes assembled their vassals, knights
their retainers ; no compulsion was used towards these dependents, but very few
of them stayed behind. The most perfect personal freedom prevailed during the
whole Crusade in this unprecedented army. Each
knight served at his own pleasure, first under one prince
and then under another, as higher pay or greater fame attracted them. Nothing
but the common impulse towards Jerusalem kept the whole mass at all together. Christ was looked upon as commander-in-chief, and therefore of
course, according to the then existing views, his representative would have
been the Papal Legate: but as he was without any military capacity, a war
committee of the most renowned leaders and bannerets,
ten, twenty, thirty, just as it happened, took the command; sometimes named a
head of the whole army, whose power lasted as long as his commission, or as he
could enforce obedience. We shall see that singular
good luck was needed, in order to secure the most moderate success in the
midst of such anarchy.
Nearly a year had passed since the Council of Clermont in 1095, before
these knightly troops were armed and collected. Many prepared never to return ; nearly all looked forward with beating hearts to an unknown and distant land, brilliant with all the
glory of miracles and the splendour of fairy tales. Such a state of mind, we,
in our fast and far-travelling days, can hardly understand; it was much as if a
large army were now to embark in balloons, in order to conquer an island
between the earth and the moon, which was also expected
to contain the heavenly Paradise. The lower classes were frantic with
excitement. The peasants and artisans, who took no part in war, and were not
admitted into the regular armies, were those upon whom the sufferings of that period fell hardest, and they
pressed with the wildest zeal to join in the Holy Crusade. In various
countries, the Crusade was preached to them through peculiar organs. On the
Rhine, a certain turbulent and ill-famed Count Emicho got together a
troop several thousand strong, with whom he began the war for Christ's sake, by
a bloody massacre and plundering of the Jews. In the north of France a native
of Amiens, Peter the Hermit, travelled about dressed as a pilgrim, with sunburnt face and beard
reaching to his middle, riding upon an ass, and told the gaping people how he
had been in Jerusalem, where the heathen desecrated the Holy Sepulchre with all
manner of filthiness, and how there one night Christ appeared to him in all his glory, and gently addressed him, saying, " Sweet
friend, tell my beloved Christian Church, that the time is
come in which to help me; I have longed for her, I shall rejoice in her, and
Paradise is open to her." His hearers beat their breasts, forsook their hovels, and followed the hermit with their wives and
children; their number grew to sixty thousand. In this case delay was
impossible, and the wild fantastic train poured though Germany in the summer of
1096, down the Danube and through Hungary into
the Greek kingdom. In Constantinople the Emperor
Alexius welcomed with alarm the tumultuous guests,
who proclaimed their leader as the true apostle of Christ, and the author of
the whole Crusade ; and who resorted to plunder to
supply their wants, not even sparing the churches. He did all he could to
hasten their transit to the shores of Asia, where, regardless of his warnings,
they rushed with blind zeal into the midst of the enemy's land, and in the course of a few weeks were nearly all cut to pieces by the Emir
of Nicaea. With the small number of survivors, Peter returned to Constantinople and awaited the coming of the main body. A heterogeneous mass of
camp-followers had joined the army; and as the princes and knights took
no notice of them, they formed into a separate body, numbering about ten
thousand beggars and marauders, who followed unarmed in
the wake of the army, and though they often increased the difficulty of
maintaining it, they sometimes did good service as
spies, servants, and baggage porters. Peter the Hermit became their spiritual
leader and saint; they moreover elected a military commander, whom they called
Tafur, the Turkish for King of the Beggars ; and laid down certain rules: for instance, no one was to be tolerated among them who
possessed any money; he must either quit their honourable community, or hand
over his property to the King of the Beggars for the common fund. The princes and
knights did not venture into their camp except in large bodies and well armed;
the Turks said of the Tafurs, that they liked nothing so well to eat as the
roasted flesh of their enemies.
In the autumn of 1096 the first princely troops arrived at Constantinople; others followed in rapid succession, till the
spring of 1097, some by water, some by land. The northern French mostly came
through Italy and Epirus, the Provençals
through tia, and the Lorrainers through Hungary. The Emperor Alexius was not without misgivings when he saw them arrive. He knew the hatred
of the Latins towards the Greeks, particularly Bohemund's strong hostility towards himself. But their scattered order
somewhat reassured him, and indeed inspired him with an idea of making use of them to forward the interests of his own empire. He
informed them that Syria and Asia Minor were provinces of the Roman Empire, and
only alienated from it for the time by the superior might of the Turks, and
that he therefore expected that when they were driven out the pilgrims
would acknowledge him as their legitimate Sovereign,
and swear fealty to him: under these conditions he would furnish them with
provisions, and assist them with troops. Count Hugo, who landed first, made no
difficulty ; but Duke Godfrey replied, that "his only master was the Lord Jesus Christ, and him only would he serve."
Hereupon he was attacked and beaten by the Emperor's troops, and obliged to
take the oath, to save the rest of his army. Bohemund, the
one whom the Emperor most dreaded, submitted at once; he saw that most of the
pilgrims had no mind to fight near Constantinople, which would have delayed
their departure for the Holy Sepulchre; so he resolved, when once arrived in Asia, to disregard his oaths, and to act according to
circumstances. His example determined the rest, except the stubborn and hot-headed Raymond of Toulouse, who would sooner die than
acknowledge any other lord than Christ He conceived a bitter and lasting hatred against Bohemund on this
occasion; and when Alexius, who by no means trusted the crafty Norman, in spite of his oaths, perceived this, he tried to secure the
friendship of the Count, by overwhelming him with presents, and marks of
honour, and letting him off the oaths. One of the chief officers of his
Court, Tatikios, accompanied the army as the Emperor's representative in the
States that were to be conquered.
After many months bad passed in these transactions,
the troops at last landed on the long-desired Asiatic soil; and the war against the enemies of Christ began with an attack on the Emir of Nicaea. It was fortunate for the pilgrims that the power of the
Seljukes was greatly broken and decayed.
Several pretenders were quarrelling for the Sultan's throne, and the emirs, or
governors of provinces, had made themselves quite independent, and were waging
war with each other. Several Armenian princes belonging to the
subject Christian population had risen in arms in
Taurus, and on the banks of the Euphrates and in Mesopotamia.
On the south the Caliph of Egypt had just commenced a general war against the
Seljukes, and was advancing towards Palestine by the isthmus of Suez. Thus
the Crusaders found every barrier levelled before them. When they arrived in
Asia, the Emir of Nicaea was fighting against the Prince of Melitene, the Emir
of Aleppo besieging his neighbours of Damascus and Emessa, and the Emirs of
Sebaste and Mosul were engaged in war with the Armenian leaders;
all feeling of unity and even of religious zeal among the Turks was entirely
crushed by these manifold feuds. On the other hand, the Armenians were awaiting
the arrival of the Crusaders with impatience. Some Frankish knights, sent on before the army, were cordially welcomed by them, and .
even the Caliph of Egypt, although seeking to seize Jerusalem for himself,
received a deputation from the pilgrims, who
offered him their alliance against the common enemy, the
Seljukes. A year before, an alliance with one Mahomedan against another would
have been regarded with horror by the pilgrims; but in the face of reality,
even fierce zealots could take a practical course.
Nicaea, abandoned to its fate by the other emirs,
fell before the Crusaders in July, 1097. The conquerors
then marched, amid fatigue and hardship, diagonally across Asia Minor. They had
confided to Count Stephen of Blois the direction of their operations, or rather, the presidency of the council of
war, and he chose, on arriving at the foot of the Taurus, to follow the road
along the north of the range as far as the Euphrates, and then, after a
considerable circuit, to cross the mountains and advance
into Syria ; the object of this deviation was probably
to render as much help to the Armenians as possible. Numerous small garrisons
were left behind in the hill forts; Cilicia was called to arms by a division
under Bohet mund's adventurous cousin Tancred, and Count Baldwin, Godfrey's brother; and shortly afterwards Baldwin was sent with
a fresh detachment across the Euphrates into Mesopotamia, where he showed so
much vigour and discretion in his dealings with the Armenians, that in the
course of a few months they proclaimed him their sovereign in their capital city of Edessa. The main army meanwhile
inarched down the course of the Orontes upon the most important and best
fortified of all the Syrian towns, Antioch, where years of fighting, triumphs,
and disasters of all kinds awaited the Christian forces.
In Antioch ruled an aged emir, related to the Sultan's family, by name Bagi Sijan, who had always distinguished himself
by rude energy and valour: he was now determined to resist to the last gasp.
The Christians poured over the rich and fruitful country. More than a hundred of their knights established themselves in the castles and
fortresses of the surrounding land, unmindful of the
wants of the army, or the progress of the siege. The great princes were
meanwhile encamped before the. several gates of the town, without power to blockade the entrance, much less to make an
assault upon its strong and lofty walls. Bagi Sijan s horse scoured the
adjoining country in incessant sorties, destroyed scattered bodies of Christian
troops, and cut off the supplies of the principal
camp. Day after day passed; winter ^came with endless floods of rain; want,
hunger and sickness began to thin the Christian forces to a fearful degree. Of the
300,000 fighting men, only half were at their posts; the horses were all dead,
save a few hundreds; the commander-in-chief, Stephen of Blois, fell sick, and
had himself carried away from the camp to the nearest seaport town of
Alexandretta. The others still persevered. By degrees they erected small entrenchments and forts before the gates, stopped, the passage of
the bridge over which the Turks had .been able to cross the river, and repulsed
some of the emirs who tried to succour the garrison. In the spring, matters
mended; the sickness ceased, many scattered parties returned,
and a Genoese fleet brought abundant supplies, and gave the command of the
Mediterranean. On the other hand, internal discord began to show itself.
Bohemund had cast his eye on Antioch, and therefore persecuted the Greek Tatikios with all kinds of threats and in-, stilts, till he drove him
from the camp; he then declared, that if the princes would promise him the
hereditary possession of this important town, he would deliver it into their
hands. He had ample ground for this assurance. It is true that there
were fiercer warriors among the pilgrims than the Prince of TarenCipm. Count
Robert of Flanders was held to be the best lance in the army, and no sword was
more dreaded than that of Duke Godfrey, whose powerful arm had, in one of the recent skirmishes, cut a fully armed Turk in two, so that
the head and breast fell to the earth, while the lower half of the body was
borne back by the horse into
the town. Nevertheless, the Turks unquestionably
looked upon Prince Bohemund as the head of the army, and the centre of all its
movements; and accordingly Firuz az Zerrad, a grandee of Antioch, moved by
personal hatred to Bagi Sijan, made propositions to him to the effect that
he would receive baptism, and betray the town into his
hands. When Bohemund made known this offer to the council of war, the princes
hesitated: Count Raymond of Toulouse, bitterly envious of his more cunning
comrade, strongly protested against it, on the score of the oath by which they had all acknowledged the claim of the Emperor Alexius,
and thereupon the others declared it impossible to agree to Bohe-mund's
request. He shrugged his shoulders and withdrew from the siege to bide his
time. Before long a general lassitude seemed to prevail in the Christian
camps, and threatening news arrived from the East. The Sultan having mastered
his rival, had commanded the Emir Kerbuga of Mosul, to gather together all the
force of his dominions, and to sweep the ribald crew of unbelievers from the face of the earth. He collected above half a million of
men, who, fortunately for the Crusaders, spent several weeks in fruitless
skirmishes against Baldwin before Edessa. At last their
leader saw where the decisive blow ought to be struck, and led his
3S BISTORT OF THE CRUSADES.
enormous army towards Antioch. The anxiety then became great among the
Christians, for the worst might be anticipated, if they were shut in between
the yet unconquered town and the overwhelming force
which was advancing to its relief. In this strait the princes applied to
Bohemund, but he, cool and unmoved, reiterated his former demand. Already
Kerbuga's light horse had reached the first outposts of the Prankish position,
danger was imminent, when
Raymond retracted his opposition, and the town was promised to Bohemund. During
the night he, accompanied by sixty knights, scaled one of the towers of the
town wall guarded by Firuz; and through the nearest gate, which he instantly
opened to them, the army poured into the town, and
overpowered the Turkish garrison, amid a frightful struggle and bloodshed. The
old emir fled, but was killed in the mountains by a troop of Christian
peasants; his son however succeeded in throwing himself with a
few followers intt> the citadel, where he repulsed
Bohemund's hasty attacks.
This occurred on the 6th of June, 1098; on the 9th, Kerbuga's forces
appeared in endless array; so near had Bohemund's absorbing ambition allowed
destruction to approach. The Christians were still
in great danger; after the assault, they had plun-
SUFFERINGS OF THE CHRISTIANS, 39
'tiered, revelled, and wasted the small stores they had found, and a
blockade of a few days must inevitably produce a famine. The enemy, too, within the walls, entrenched in the citadel, which stood on the south side
of the town and commanded it, had at once opened communication with Ker-buga.
In that quarter of the city, the struggle was carried on day and night, almost
without ceasing. Elsewhere Kerbuga contented himself with a
strict blockade, and used his numerical superiority to keep throwing fresh
troops into the citadel, whence their attacks constantly increased in violence.
Weariness and despair now seized upon the Christians
; their sufferings from hunger were frightful; men were
seen gnawing roots of trees, and shoes, and fighting for dead rats and cats.
Some sank down in the heat of battle unwounded, but tired to death, heedless of
the strife going on above their heads. Thousands gave up all hope and concealed themselves in the houses, which neither promises
nor threats could induce them to leave. In this misery the council appointed
Bohemund commander-in-chief with unlimited power. He
saved them again this time, by ordering the town to be
fired, so as to drive the soldiers into the streets. Upwards
of two thousand houses were reduced to ashes.
This produced a complete revulsion of feel
40 HISTORY of THE CRUSADES.
ing, which, from a state of deep depression, at once rose to fanatical enthusiasm. The strong religious feeling which for
awhile had subsided beneath the influence of strange and foreign impressions,
revived with renewed energy. Led by a vision, a Provencal discovered in a
church the lance with which Christ was pierced on the cross;
pilgrims daily appeared before the council of princes, to announce fresh apparitions of the Virgin and other saints, who exhorted
the army to sally forth and fight. Bohemund himself had no other project; help
was not to be hoped for, and if they were not to starve,
they must conquer. In the enemy's camp dissension and insubordination
prevailed; considerable bodies of men, offended by Kerbuga,
had dispersed, and when, on the 28th of July,
the Pranks sallied forth from the town, they succeeded after a short
struggle in scattering the disconnected and unwieldy masses in all directions.
This settled the whole war; a boundless dread of the Christian arms spread
throughout the East; if the pilgrims had then advanced, they might have taken possession of Palestine without the least
fear of opposition.
But a new difficulty now arose among the princes themselves. Raymond of
Toulouse, who occupied a few towers in Antioch, reverted to his former refusal
to deliver them up to Bohemund. The other princes
MARCH UPON JERUSALEM, 41
did not wish to offend either of these two mighty chiefs by a hostile
decision, and a bitter quarrel, which soon spread among the troops, and often
led to bloody strife between the Provenyals and the
Normans, paralyzed all their movements. At last* in January 1099, when the
dispute between Bohemund and Tancred was repeated, on
occasion of the taking of the neighbouring town Maara, the pilgrims would endure it no longer. A wild outburst ensued; the pilgrims exclaimed that they would go on to Jerusalem; the princes
might quarrel about the things of this world, but Christ would guide his own
people. The old fanatical spirit broke through all the political and military
considerations by which it had been restrained for some time.
Spite of all Raymond's anger, he was forced to evacuate Antioch, and to follow
in the wake of his excited fellow-countrymen. Then the army, in fact without
head or leader, rushed wildly on towards its original
destination. Jerusalem had meanwhile fallen into the
hands of the Egyptians, whose inclinations were originally friendly; but to the
excited feelings of the Christian forces, the Egyptian infidels appeared as hateful and worthy of death as any Seljukes. The town was surrounded and taken by storm on the 15th of July. The Christian fury
against the infidels vented itself in a sanguinary
42 HJ8T0RY OF THE CRUSADES,
struggle, and in some places the besiegers waded knee-deep in blood;
they then, with tears of rapture,
and in a state of ecstatic piety, threw themselves
down to pray at the Holy Sepulchre, surrounded with heaps of the slain.
After eight days passed in the intoxication of victory, the princes met to take counsel as to the best means of keeping
possession of their conquest. The most important question was evidently the
choice of a ruler. The men of the highest eminence were by this time no longer
with the army. The Count of Blois had fled homewards from
Alexandretta on Kerbuga's approach. Bohemund had remained in Antioch, and the
Papal Legate had died soon after the victory over Kerbuga. The princes offered
the crown of the new kingdom to Count Raymond; he, however, declared that he was unworthy to wear an earthly crown in so holy a place.
According to some accounts, they then turned to the Duke of Normandy, but
received the same answer. It is certain that at last they applied to Duke
Godfrey, who, although he, like Raymond, refused
the title of King, accepted the command and power in the course of the
following month. He succeeded in ! beating an Egyptian army near Ascalon, and
thus ( secured the southern frontier of the kingdom. After that however it
became impossible to restrain the
godfrey at jerusalem.
43
masses of pilgrims who, after the fulfilment of their vow, longed to
return home. Godfrey and Tancred were left at Jerusalem with about two hundred
knights and two thousand effective men-at-arms. Count Raymond
attempted, with still fewer followers, to found for himself a
kingdom in Tripoli; the numbers at the disposal of Bohemund in Antioch, and of Baldwin in Edessa, were rather more considerable. To the
duration and fate of these small territories we will
afterwards turn our attention. I will now offer a few
remarks upon the effect which these events produced both on those who took part
in them and upon the European public, an effect which manifested itself in manifold, and in some cases very remarkable
recitals and descriptions.
First, the princes themselves, in letters to the Pope, to their
relations and friends, gave their eager and curious countrymen accounts of the
great events of the war. Nine such letters have been preserved, some of them
instructive and full of detail. There were also several men with the army who
kept an accurate and continuous record of the occurrences as they succeeded
each other—a Norman knight, a Provencal priest, a chaplain of Count Baldwin of
Bouillon; and as they belonged to various countries and
detachments the reports of each supply the
44 history of the CRU8ADE8.
omissions of the rest, and thus form a tolerably complete whole. What
they had written they sent by the first opportunity to Europe, where these journals were expected with the greatest eagerness, and, on
their arrival, received with avidity, and extensively
read and copied. There were neither newspapers nor telegraphs, and in order
to spread the much-desired news as fast as possible, the expedient was hit upon that the priests should
read the newly-arrived reports, on Sundays, from the pulpit, and forward them
one to another, from place to place, for this purpose. These tales were,
indeed, much shorter than the eagerly listening crowd wished; they were also drier, from their very accuracy,
than minds thirsting for the marvellous had expected.
But the same taste had spread among the Crusaders, as well as in Europe, and
was working with creative energy for the satisfaction of that kind of curiosity. There has never yet been a large army without its bards and
poets, faithful men-at-arms, grenadiers, or hussars, who, while sitting round
the watchfire at night, invent songs in praise of their General, of their
sweetheart at home, or of their fallen comrades, which pass from
mouth to mouth, gaining new verses at every repetition. The eleventh century
was, indeed, as we have seen, an eminently unpoetical period, with its gloomy
contempt for the
ENTHUSIASM CAU8ED BY THE CRUSADES. 45
world, and its fanatical enthusiasm; during that time hardly one piece
of real poetry was produced on European soil. The Crusade, however,
in which that fanaticism vented itself, at once produced an agitation favourable to liberty and progress. While
it lasted, men's minds, it is true, were still affected by fierce religious
enthusiasm, but, at the same time, their senses were impressed and captivated
by the spectacle of an entirely new world. Thousands who till then had never
caught a glimpse of anything beyond the narrow circle of
their own parish, now beheld the splendid colouring of southern nature, the
magnificence of the Greek imperial palaces, and the strange customs of the
Mabomedan world, whose pulture, even in its decay, was so far superior to that of the Europeans, as to inspire them with respect. The
excitement produced by such impressions, was augmented by the danger which was
imminent at every moment. Death was ever before their eyes, and every faculty
of body and mind had to be exerted to preserve life, and at last to
reach the glorious goal. Their intoxicated eyes still beheld visions of the
saints and armies of heaven, but they no longer appeared in the lonely
cloistered cell, or during nightly penance and flagellation. They were now seen in the thick of the battlefield, with shining weapons, and mounted
on white steeds, dashing into
46 H18TORT OF THE CRU8ADES.
the midst of the Turkish army, and opening the way for the heroes of
the army, the darlings of the troops, through the swords of the infidel masses.
Thus, religious sentiment was still the basis of this movement; but it took a
new turn, from monkish devotion to chivalrous enthusiasm, from
ascetic renunciation of the world to knightly
valour. A new sort of heroism was thus called into existence, and with the
heroes, heroic poetry arose. It showed itself during the war among all ranks of
the army. Each nation celebrated its warriors, and,
after every great battle, sang the deeds of the victorious leader, the goodly
blows dealt by the foremost knights, and the heavenly joys which rewarded the
fallen heroes. In the fragments of these songs which still remain, we see the natural disposition to attribute the deed which decided the
common victory, to the hero or prince of each particular race, and to claim for
him a prominent and leading position. Thus, the French extolled Count Hugo, the
brother of their king, as the Duke of Dukes and the greatest
leader of the army. The men of Lorraine tell us that even in Asia Minor, Duke
Godfrey was the head of all the princes; that the attack on Antioch remained so
long unsuccessful because of his illness; and that he and his friend Robert of Flanders, had, on that memorable
night, been the first to set the ladders against
POETRY OF THE CRUSADE8.
47
the walls of Antioch, and to enter the town. Even the mob of King Tafur
had their songs in praise of the Hermit, who, in consequence of his
vision in Je* rusalem, had induced the Pope to preach the Crusade, and had then set all Europe in motion.
Altogether, we see with amazement how far, perhaps
even on the very day after the event, the imagination
of these poets and their hearers led them astray
from the truth. The Council of Clermont was held in November; here we find it
transposed into May, when the fields are green, and thrushes and blackbirds are
singing: for Nature must needs rejoice and adorn herself in honour of such an event. This poetical license is continued through the
whole 4 course
of the Crusades: side by side with the real events runs a fantastic story,
glittering and multiform ; a legendary creation,
growing out of actual present history. We see how
religious and warlike enthusiasm excites the love of adventure, and stimulates the power of invention, but also how untrustworthy are the observations and reports made under its influence.
I cannot deny myself the pleasure of giving a few extracts from these poems, which have come down to us in a later but slightly
altered form. They are written in French rhymes. The translation has been
abridged, and only aspires to render the general
tone and colour.
4S HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES.
THE TAKING OF THE CROSS AT CLERMONT.
At Clermont in Auvergne were met great hosts from near
and far,
From France, and from all Christendom, unto the Lord his
war;
Was none so young but thitherward must fare, and none so
old.
Came prince and peer and paladin, came knights and barons bold,
Each with his stout retainers, pennon and pennoncel;
The abbot brought his crosier, the cowled monk left his cell.
The King rode with his following, armed at point from head
to heel,—
Stout Hugh the Lord of Maine, and Count Bajmond of St.
Gilles,
Stephen the stalwart Duke of Blois, and Bishop Adhemar,
Than whom was none more valiant of all those men of war;
Came Godfrey of Bouloigne, with his two brothers fair,
Baldwin the sturdy striker, Eustace the debonair;
Bobert the Count of Flanders, Hobert the Monk also:
To tell the tale of all that came, were weary work, I trow.
When that their steeds were stabled and fairly foddered all,
That night at board and beaker they feasted them in hall,
And fair disport and solace they held till morning-tide.
When that the Pope in ail his might, he borne him forth to
ride,
The King and all his paladins gave him attendance due,
With the merry bells a-pealing, the minster doors unto;
THE TAKING OF THE CB088 AT CLERMONT. 49
And when the Pope had read the Mass, the multitude of folk
Out at the doors, all in hot haste, crushing and crowding,
broke.
There were so many thousands there gathered, as men sayn,
Ifor house nor hall, nor minster wall, e'er built, might them
contain.
It was a fair May morning, the birds sang roundelay,
The trees were white with blossom, buds sprang on every
spray;
All golden lay the meadows in the sunlight's gladsome sheen,
As they sfct them down by companies upon the springing green;
To left and right as far as sight could stretch they hid the sod;
The Pope he stood alone, and preached the pilgrimage of God.
From son to sire like holy fire God's spirit spread his word;
Was not one eye of thousands dry, was not one heart unstirred.
When now the Pope had ended, the King rose in his place,—
" In God's name, Holy Father, hearken my words with grace.
Well dost thou say; but I am grey, and lacking youthful heat;
A frail man and a feeble, for such pilgrimage unmeet.
'Twere well, in lieu of me, that my brother Hugo ride;
Of all my peers and paladins is none hath him outvied;
To him I render all my might."—The which when Hugo
heard,
His heart within his bosom with rapture swelled and stirred.
A joy past joy it seemed to him in such good grace to stand*
To ride with ban and arriere-ban, unto his Lord's own land.
Quoth he, " Gramercy, Brother," and kissed him foot and
hand.
E
50 HISTORY OF THE CRU8ADES.
Then to the Pope he louted low, the cross on him to take,
And knights and barons after him like act and vow did make;
Both lords of France and England, and lords of Norman
line,
They prayed and pressed to take the cross, the holy pilgrim's sign;
80 great the throng were many swooned, and died there as
they lay.
Two hundred thousand took the cross at Clermont on that
day.
Then loudly wailed the noble dames, and maidens w^pt for woe:
" Out and alas for us that hero henceforth alone must go In widowhood and orphanage! woe worth this princes' day,
That strikes, as with a single blow, our joyaunce ail away !
*Tis sad in tower, 'tis dark in bower, all empty, cold, and lone;
Silent all sound of singing, disport and solace flown."
And many a gentle dame, I wis, her youthful lord bespake,—
" Fair husband, that with' choice of heart me for your love
did take,
Winning my favour with all vows that gain a lady's ear,
For God and Mary mother, when forth o'er sea you steer,
And look upon the city, where our Lord hung on the tree,
Keep thy true wife unforgotten, and give a thought to me."
There were gentle eyes a-weeping, and tears on tears they
flowed,
And many a wedded woman there took the cross of God;
But the maidens sadly wended their weary way again,
Back to their fathers' castles, with their lonely weight of pain.
THE LEAGUER OF ANTIOCH.
51
THE LEAGUER OF ANTIOCH.
Now lithe and listen, lordings, while the Christians' hap I
tell,
That, as they lay in leaguer, from hunger them befell.
In evil case the army stood, their stores of food were spent:
Peter the holy Hermit, he sat before his tent:
Then came to him the King Tafur, and with him fifty score
Of men-at-arms, not one of them but hunger gnawed him sore.
" Thou holy Hermit, counsel us, and help us at our need;
Help, for God's grace, these starving men with wherewithal
to feed."
But Peter answered, "Out, ye drones,a helpless pack that cry,
While all unburied round about the slaughtered Paynim lie.
A dainty dish is Paynim flesh, with salt and roasting due."
" Now, by my fay," quoth King Tafur, " the Hermit sayeth
true."
Then fared he forth the Hermit's tent, and sent his menye
out,
More than ten thousand, where in heaps the Paynim lay
about.
They hewed the corpses limb from limb, and disemboweled
clean,
And there was sodden meat and roast, to blunt their hunger
keen:
Bight savoury fare it seemed them there; they smacked
their lips and spake,—
" Farewell to fasts: a daintier meal than this who asks to
make?
E 2
52 HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES.
'Tis sweeter far than porker's flesh, or bacon seethed in
grease.
Let's make good cheer, and feast us here, till life and hunger
cease."
While King and host, on boiled and roast, were making
merry cheer,
The savoury reek of Paynim flesh 'gan rise into the air,
Till to the walls of Antioch the winds that smell did blow;
Then rose within an angry din, and all were wild for woe.
On house and hall and 'battled wail the swarming Paynim
hung,
While all around the sharper sound was heard of woman's
tongue.
Up to his topmost solar was y-clomb King Garsion,
With Isaes his nephew, and Sansadon his son.
Quoth Garsion to his children,—" Now, by the great Mahoun,
These devils eat our brethren: look, in the plain adown."
Tafur the king looked up from meat; he saw the Paynim
stand,
Men, wives, and maids, on every wall that might a view command ;
No ruth the sight awakened, but thriftily he bade
That they should see the corpses picked from where the
heaps were laid;
Bade roast whatso was fresh, and whatso rotted bade them
throw
Into the stream that by the wails of Antioch did flow.
" We'll give the fish," quoth he," the smack of Paynim flesh
to know." i
THE LEAGUER OF ANTIOCH.
53
It happed that for a chevaachie did with Count Bobert join
Count Tancred, and Count Bohemund, and Godfrey of Bou-loigne;
All closed in steel from head to heel they chanced to pass
that way,'
And knightly greeted they the King, and laughingly 'gan
say,—
" How fares it with the King Tafur P" " In sooth," the King
replied,
" If I said ' ill,' fair sirs, meseems, so speaking, I had lied.
Had we to skink a cup of drink, for food we've here our fill."
" Now, by my fay," quoth Godfrey,44 Here's drink, an if you
will;"
And straight bade bring a pitcher, filled with his own red
wine.
Then drank Tafur, and well I wot, ne'er seemed him drink
so fine.
Then from his solar where he stood, loud called King Garsion
To Bohemund, unto whose ear the wind brought every tone
Of that fierce sound,—44 Now, by Mahound, malapert knaves
ye bin,
To do dead bodies such foul wrong is insolence and sin."
But Bohemund made answer,—44 Fair Lord, what here ye see
Is none of our commanding, nor wight thereof have we:
'Tis King Tafur's devising, his and his devil's crew;
An evil rout are they, God wot.
The brutish taste we rue
That boar or deer holds sorrier cheer than flesh of Paynim
slain.
Yet ask not us to chide them, but unto Heaven complain."
54 FII STORY OF THE CRUSADE8.
THE GATHERING OF THE PAYNIM.
Not far from Samarkand an open meadow lay,
Girt with dark stems of cypress, laurel, and olive grey,
And round the place a fragrant hedge of balsam thicket
went;
Upon that mead the Sultan bade pitch his royal tent.
The tent-poles were of elmen-tree, with silver wrought full
rare;
The tent-stuff was all diapered, like to a chess-board fair,
Half of the white and cramoisy, half of the gold and green,
And in the chequers, ouches and stones that glittered sheen:
Twelve thousand men beneath its shade had lain at ease, I
ween.
And 'mid the household stuff that filled the fair pavilion
round,
Was set on high, in beaten gold, an image of Mahound.
Between four magic-loadstones, all free in air it hung,
And hitherward and thitherward, as the wind listed, swung.
Then fourteen lords came lowly forth, each lord a king's
own son,
And featly at the Sultan's high board have service done,
And after to the idol their sacrifice they made,
And, grovelling upon the ground, their gifts before it laid,
And censered it with incense, and prayed, and still the sound
That ended all their litanies was "Hear us, great Mahound."
While all were still on kneeling knees, in sudden fury broke
Prince Sansadon before the rout, and loud and wrathful
spoke,—
THE GATHERING OF THE PAYNIM.
55
" Up, weakling wittols that ye are, blind fools that here are
la4d,
Not knowing this Mahound of yours is powerless all to aid.
'Tis through that lewd false faith of his, and trusting in his
name,
That I have lost my people and all mine own fair fame."
Then high uprist, he cleuched his fist, and smote the ido\
down,
And trampled it beneath his feet: whereat there rose a
stoun,
A wild uproar and hellish rout of that mad paynimrie;
The knives they rained about his head, the shafts flew fast
and free;
"Accursed!n cried the Sultan, "who taught thee mock
our creed ?
Who art thou ?
What thy lineage P
A rope were thy fit
meed."
Prince Sansadon declared his name, and sadly 'gan to tell
The evil that on Antioch by Christian leaguer fell;
Told of the Christian archers that waste no shaft in air,
The Christian knights, ail sheathed in steel, that steel-sharp iancea bear,
" Each one of whom," quoth he, " if down upon our hosts
he bore,
Would spit of our light horsemen three files, I ween, or
four."
Then scornful waxed the Sultan,— "Now, stout Knight
mote thou be!
Who'd learn faint-heart and cowardice may go to school
to thee "
56 HISTORY Of THE CRUSADE8.
Then up and spake grim Corbaran,—" Nay, Lord, as I opine,
He hath too much y-drunken: his head is hot with wine."
" Now nay, thou Persian Admiral," Prince Sansadon replied,
" Light words, soon said, but by my head I swear thy jape
goes wide.
Tis not faint-heart, nor cowardice, nor wine that speaks
in me.
King Garsion bade me ride to you as fast as fast may be.
For your good aid he prays you : he is right sore bested.
Behold, I bring this token, to seal what I have said."
And with the word, out of the pouch that like a post he
wore t
Girt round about his waist, his sire's grey beard he bore.
But when the Sultan saw it, right sorry waxed his cheer.
" Now of a truth, when Garsion did brook his chin to shear,
- Things stand, I wot, in evil case; his need it is not small.
To counsel how we best may bring him succour, one and all."
Long ail was hush: both prince and peer sat silently and
still,
" As stricken to their inmost souls to hear King Garsion's ill.
Then random counsel counselled they; some this advised,
Some that;
At last out spake King Kangas, on Bubia's throne that sat.
' " Now, by Mahound, great Sultan, this seemeth best to me:
Send through thy land, on every hand, swift posts as swift
may be,
And to Coronda summon all your lords, with their array,
And, before all, the Caliph that in Bagdad holdeth sway.
Comes he, our Pope, salvation and strength come at his side,
And mightiest following of all with him will eastward ride."
THE GATHERING OF THE PAYNIM.
57
' " So be it," cried the Sultan, " a wise word hast thou said;
Four hundred posts with letters shall ere to-night be sped.'1
* A moon had waxed, a moon had waned, and one in crescent
stood,
When all ways to Goronda flowed arm'd warriors like a flood
Of horse and foot; by night and day the mighty muster goes,
With swords and staves and spears and glaives, with maces
and with bows.
1 From Bagdad rode the Caliph, that ail the country round
Had raised in arms by promise of the blessing of Mahound.
Came the swart and sinewy Arabs, that make their godless
scorn
Of Christ bis resurrection; and, the foul Fiend's brother
born,
Leu, fiery-red, and gnashing his teeth as he were wode,
Behind whose heels of Turkish spears four hundred thousand rode;
Came from the furthest East a folk of strange and eldritch
kind,
. In whom, save teeth and eye-balls, no white speck mote you
find.
And in the vanward of this rout, high set you might behold,
Upon a dromedary tall, Corbaran's mother old.
Grey was her hair, her eyes were blear, but still her wits were
strong;
Strange things she knew from sun and moon, that to black
art belong;
Could read the courses of the stars, and in those lights on
high,
foresaw at will the secrets of mortal destiny.
58 HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES.
Their hosts up in the rearward the Kings of Mecca brought,
Bearing their image of Mahound, of hollow gold y- wrought;
Wherein through spell of gramarye an evil spirit sate,
And the Paynim danced before it, for worship and for state.
I trow it was a sight to see, that image of Mahound
Moving to din of shawms and drums, with harp and viol's
sound.
So to its journey's end in state the golden idol came,
Where with his host the Caliph sate to greet Mahound his
name.
Whereat the lying spirit that in this idol sate,
Blew himself up for pride before the Caliph and his state:—
" List what I say, and weigh my words and rightly understand:
The Christians have never right unto the Paynim's land,
For that they worship God on high; this land I give to ye;
Heaven 'longeth to the Christian's God—the land belongs to me."
Then merry were the Paynim, and loud they cried, I wot,—
" Bight well Mahound hath spoken;—a fool that trusts him
not."
Then, as chief captain of the host, the Sultan chose a man,
The Admiral of Olifern, the valiant Corbaran.
By beat of drum the heathen rout he marshalled there and
then,
In two-and-thirty squadrons, each of threescore thousand
men.
His foot was in the stirrup, his grasp was at the mane,
When his old mother, Calabra, his armed hand hath ta'en
THE GATHERING OF THE PAYNIM. $9
'Twaa twice ten years since in the stars, by her black art
she read,
TheChristians should be victors, the Faynims should be sped.
44 Fair Sir," quoth she, 44 now wilt thou ride in good sooth to
the field ?"
" Yea, and in sooth, good mother, and unseemly 'twere to
yield,
While still in Antioch's leaguer the Christians flout our
bands;
I trow 'twere pity of his life, that in my danger stands."
" Son, take good counsel: homeward to Olifern repair.
These Christian knights are terrible; their stars show bright
and fair."
44 What prate is this, good mother ?
Say, is the story true.
That Bohemund and Tancred are their goddikins, the two ?
That for their early breakfast, whene'er they crave to eat,
Two thousand beeves will scarce suffice this doughty twain
for meat.
So runs the tale."
Then said the witch, " Son, leave this
flouting tone;
No gods these Christians worship, save Christ the Lord
alone.
Never a man of all this host shall Christian might defy.
Of all the heads I count, not one but it shall lowly lie."
Heavy of heart that chieftain waxed, but featly hid his pain:
44 Now let her yelp : so old she is, she grows a child again,
*Twere a good deed to cut her throat."
Then into selle he
sprang,
And forward marched the Paynim host to the trumpet's
shattering clang.
60 HI8TOET OF THE CRU8ADE8.
When the Crusade was ended, and the mass of pilgrims came pouring back
to the places of their birth, they imparted these more picturesque descriptions to their fellow-countrymen. We can imagine in how lofty a strain
they would relate these tales; how imperceptibly the
materials would grow beneath their hands; how conjecture
would become certainty, and feeling take the form of undoubted fact. What
awakened the interest of their hearers the most was undoubtedly the choice of a
King of Jerusalem. During the expedition there had been songs in praise of
Count Hugo's and Duke Robert's deeds, as well as of Duke Godfrey's; but the
attention of Europe was now almost exclusively fixed upon the ruler of
Palestine and the protector of the Holy Sepulchre. All the world wished
to know his birth and parentage, to hear of his deeds and virtues; his fame became decidedly and exclusively prominent, and cast the
real or fictitious greatness of the others completely into the shade. He was
made into a descendant of the fabulous Knight of the
Swan; it was reported that he had ever been the protector of innocence and the
defender of the weak; that he once sinfully fought against Pope Gregory in the
service of the Emperor, since when he had lain in heavy sickness
till the time of the Crusades; then, by God's command, and as a sure
GODFREY OF BOUILLON.
61
sign of his heavenly calling, the fever had left the hero. Twenty years
after his death, a priest of Aix-la-Chapelle, named Albert, collected all the songs, and verbal communications in praise of the
Duke, and incorporated them in a prose recital, which is extremely graphic and
lively. Partly from this source, and partly from later poetical versions of the
original songs, subsequent writers have drawn all their knowledge
of Peter the Hermit as originator, and of Godfrey of Bouillon as commander of
the Crusade; here Torquato Tasso found the so-called historical subject of his
great poem; but, as we now know, he did but employ his master hand in polishing and completing the great poem
of a former century.
I have ventured to divert the attention of my readers from the
contemplation of facts to the much-decried domain of scientific investigation
and criticism. We often hear complaints that investigation is dry and criticism destructive. I must admit that in
this instance Godfrey and Peter the Hermit have been shorn of their false
glory; and yet, if I mistake not, the picture of those
remarkable times loses nothing of its freshness or completeness.
A critical examination of the original sources* shows us that certain events
never really took place, and • See Part II.
02 HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES.
existed only in the creative fancy of contemporaries ; but we know, and have here fresh proof, that history
does not consist solely of battles and sieges; the achievements of the mind and
the productions of fancy are among its most important features; and with regard
to the Crusades, I have no hesitation in looking upon the composition of those songs as an event almost greater than the taking of
Jerusalem. The territorial possession was lost in a few years, and indeed it
was untenable from the first; but in those legends we see the first stir of a
vigorous new life, the first pulsation of renewed mental activity
after a century of oppressive and gloomy fanaticism. This direction once taken,
was never again lost by Europe, but gradually carried along the whole
hemisphere in its course.
63
CHARTER III.
The Frankish States founded in Syria by the First
Crusade had no easy task. With an army consisting at the most of seven thousand
horse and five thousand foot, they could not hope for succour from their distant native countries; scattered among a scarcely
conquered hostile population, and surrounded by
powerful and naturally implacable foes. At first the great battles of Antioch
and Ascalon produced great moral effect. Internal dissensions
among the Turkish potentates, helped the Christians through the first period of danger, and then, attracted by the reports of the Crusade, the
European countries sent perpetual reinforcements, which arrived sometimes in
small and sometimes in large bodies, by water and by land, some intending to
settle there entirely, but most for a limited period. From all this,
however, Duke Godfrey derived little advantage; he was so powerless that, in
even Jeru
64 HISTORY OF THE CRU8ADES.
salem itself, he was obliged to acknowledge himself the vassal of an
ambitious prelate, Dagobert, who had been chosen
Patriarch of the Holy City; and he died as early as 1100, after a short and
unevent-; ful reign. He was succeeded by his brothet Baldwin of Edessa, a vigorous and able ruler, who overthrew the supremacy
of the Patriarch by arbitrary
force, and established the royal authority on all points. Within ten years he
took all the seaport towns from Tripoli to Jaffa, and
thereby secured what was most important, freedom of
communication with the Western world; the last years of his life were employed in defending the southern boundary of his kingdom
towards Egypt by a succession of fortresses, which he
planted partly round Ascalon, still held by the Egyptians, partly in the
wilderness, on the spurs of the Arabian desert. His successor,
Baldwin II., who reigned from 1118 till 1130, carried on this warlike movement
with even greater energy and a more far-sighted policy. The rule of the Caliphs
of Egypt was then in a feeble and decaying condition; moreover the desert, and
the naval predominance of the Christians, rendered any serious attack impossible. The probable, indeed the only
danger to the Franks was from the East; in case any leader of eminence should
arise among the vigorous and warlike Seljukes, re-
BALDWIN II.
65
concile or control the dissentient emirs, and then break into the
country with a united force. Baldwin II., who, like his predecessor,
had once been Count of Edessa, had a vivid conception of this danger, and
accordingly wished to direct the military
force at his disposal in Jerusalem and Antioch to that quarter; and there if
not wholly to destroy the Sultanate, at least to secure a safe and defensible
frontier. According to this plan, they must have taken Damascus, Aleppo, and
all the places between Antioch and Edessa: then a
sufficient defence would have been formed by the Taurus mountains on the north,
the Euphrates on the north-east, and the Syrian desert on the south-east, as
the boundaries of a compact kingdom. Baldwin followed up this idea by unceasing warfare and incredible exertion. Once, when taken
prisoner by a bold adventurer, he lay for years a prisoner among the Turks.
After his release, this misfortune only served to spur his activity into
redoubled vigour. During his life the supremacy of the Cross was maintained
in those countries. Haleb and Damascus were not conquered
indeed, but they paid tribute, and the Mussulman merchants trembled as they
passed along the roads between the Euphrates and Tigris, in fear lest the
lances of the Frankish knights should appear on the
horizon. If all the Christians had
F
66 HISTORY OP THE CRUSADES.
shared the ideas of their King, his plan would in all
probability have been carried out, and perhaps a lasting foundation of European
power and civilization would have been laid in those lands.
But Baldwin stood alone among his comrades in his political and
military views. They were never wanting in ardour, courage,
or religious zeal. No sooner did an enemy appear, than they received the
sacrament with fervent tears, and rushed with enthusiastic contempt of death
into the tight, where the overwhelming weight of the Frankish armour always told with effect. Their abilities, however, extended no
further; convinced that they were protected by God himself, they
attended little to earthly considerations. Instead of supporting the King in
his conquests in the north, the barons and burghers
of Jerusalem lamented his leaving the vicinity of the Holy Sepulchre so often,
and even neglecting it for such distant undertakings; besides dragging about
that invaluable relic the Holy Cross, on those accursed campaigns. Thus
hindered and thwarted on all sides, Baldwin was unable to
accomplish his great design. The heroes who drew their swords and shook their
lances so gallantly in Christ's honour, were quite incapable of
understanding the political motives and consequences of their undertaking. It
may even be said that they would not
f
QUARRELS AMONG THE PRINCES. 67
understand them. Every earthly consideration seemed to them a
presumptuous interference with God's ordinances, an impious intermingling of
earth with heaven. They thus ruined their kingdom by the same one-sided
religious zeal which had given them the energy to conquer it. Instead of striving to frame their society according to religious principles,
and then allowing politics to obey political rules, and war military ones, they
started upon the supposition that the very existence of
their dominion was a wonder of God's own working, and
they were convinced that for every fresh danger which threatened it, God had a new miracle in store. They were soon to discover
that such a notion was as destructive to religion and morality, as to political
and warlike success.
It has been remarked, in all times, that the exclusive piety which holds itself superior to human reason, is just that
which panders most to earthly vices. Amidst the most ardent enthusiasm for the
Church, all the most earthly passions soon asserted their sway. The princes of Edessa and Antioch quarrelled among themselves quite as fiercely as the
emirs of Aleppo and Damascus. Ere long, even a knight like Tancred sought
Turkish help against his Christian adversaries, though, according to the fundamental ideas of the Crusade, any alliance with a
f 2
68 HISTORY OF THE CRUSADE8.
Turk was an abomination, and their blood the only pleasant offering to
the Lord. It was, however, inevitable that the bitterness of
religious hatred should gradually subside. Each day brought
forth social and commercial relations with the infidels, as well as war. The
Franks saw with amazement that people who in Europe were held to be worse than
wild beasts, half-demons, half-brutes, could be lived with, dealt with, nay,
even that much might be learnt from them. The idea
dawned for the first time upon the Franks, that human nature could exist under
other conditions than those of their own Church, that God's light might be
reflected in a thousand different ways. Such an idea is now welcome and consolatory to our religious feelings, but then it was entirely
subversive of all received opinions. It was the same in all other transactions.
Spite of all the devotion to the Holy Sepulchre, the
Crusaders plunged deeper and deeper into the earthly joys
of Oriental life. Baldwin's successor, King Fulco, was old and somewhat infirm;
he forgot the orders he had just given, mistook his best friends, and had no
memory but for the commands of his imperious wife Meli-sende, which he executed
with tremulous exactness. Under this prince, the
warlike impulse of the Baldwins completely died away. The
Christians devoted their whole attention to personal luxury and splen-
LUXURY OF THE CRU8ADERS. 69
dour. The numerous clergy led the way by their
example. Barons and prelates vied with each other in the race for political
influence, rich benefices and livings, wealth, and pleasure. There was no
kingdom in Europe in which the beauty and power of women played so conspicuous
a part, as in the community at the Holy Sepulchre. Much
as Fulco feared his queen, he was so jealous of her that he brought the
handsome and proud Count Hugo of Joppa, whom he thought she distinguished, in
danger of his life, by a criminal suit. Thereupon Hugo fled to the Egyptians, and commenced a devastating war against the kingdom; this was
assuaged with much difficulty, and Hugo was recalled to Jerusalem, as it
proved, to his misfortune, for an assassin attacked him in the high-road, and
wounded him severely, which induced him to fly anew, to Europe. We find
the same scenes repeated in the north. Count Joscelin of Edessa, a dwarfish,
misshapen man, with a black beard, sparkling eyes, and gigantic bodily
strength, left his capital in order to live joyously with numerous mistresses in shady country palaces, on this side of the Euphrates. In
Antioch, Eliza, the widow of Bohemund II., withheld the inheritance from her daughter Constance. Count Raymond
of Foitou, a handsome and brilliant knight, cast an eye on the rich heiress, but soon perceived,
70
HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES.
that though favoured by her, he could not gain possession of the throne against the will of her resolute and clever
mother. Upon this, he changed his tactics, and appeared as the mother's passionate adorer, obtained a favourable answer, and led her in
brilliant array to the altar, but no further. When there, he suddenly turned to
the daughter, married her, and then, before the very eyes of the astounded and
bewildered mother, proclaimed his and his consort's accession to
the throne. Amid such occurrences, it was no wonder that the war against the
Turks did not progress. The desire for further conquest was extinct, and the
Christians only prayed to heaven that things might but remain as they were.
Such stability is not, however, the portion of human affairs. While the Franks rested and enjoyed life, trusting in
God's help, a man arose among the Turks, who was destined to be the author of
their destruction. Shortly before the Crusade, the brother
of the Seljuke Sultan had caused one of his most able emirs to be executed, and
had thought himself merciful and gracious because he spared his young son,
Emaleddin Zenki. Deprived of fortune or favour, this boy worked his way up,
from a common horse-soldier, by the strength of his arm
and his intelligence. Amid the disorders of civil war, and more particularly
since the invasion by the Franks,
ZENKI THE BLOODY PRINCE.
71
bis sharp sword, his undaunted courage, and his keen and accurate judgment, had quickly become famous in the Syrian countries.
He rose rapidly, from step to step, and all the Seljukes praised Allah when
Zenki obtained the emirate of Mosul, with the distinct commission to wage an
exterminating war against the Franks. The adversities of his youth had made him stern and harsh; he
was more indignant at the indolent anarchy of his countrymen,
than at the hostility of the Christians, and, while, from the beginning of his
government, he left them not a moment's rest,
perpetually attacked them unawares, and soon gained from them the dreaded title
of the " bloody prince," he was entirely without mercy, or even
justice, towards a Seljuke who was lax in the prosecution of the holy war, or,
still worse, was suspected of friendship for a Christian. Military unity and energy were thus once more established
under the Prophet's flag, and soon made themselves
felt in bloody attacks, now upon the kingdom of Jerusalem, now upon the
northern principalities. In a short time the Turkish
possessions, from the Tigris to Lebanon, were under one rule, and in 1145 one
of the most important Christian cities, Edessa, was taken by storm. Zenki died
directly after, and Count Joscelin, roused from his life of indolence, hastened
to free the town from the Turkish garri-
72
BISTORT Of THE CRCSADES.
sod.
Scarcely had he set foot in it, when Xureddin, Zeuki's son, approached with a
large army, and, after sharp fighting, took Edessa for the second time, and
nearly destroyed it From that time, the whole of Mesopotamia
remained in the hands of the Turks. The Christians discovered that there was no
help for this state of things, and that Antioch must now serve as the northern
frontier town instead, and, as far as they were concerned,
profound peace prevailed in the land. Occasionally they exhorted Europe to send
them a few reinforcements, at their earliest convenience.
There, the Holy Land had for a long time occupied
but a small share of public attention. The reason lay in the general
intellectual movement which had suddenly sprung up among the nations of Europe
at the beginning of the twelfth century. The ascetic piety which despises the
things of this world, and which had culminated in Gregory
VII. and the Crusades, called forth a general reaction by its violence. In
France, one of the acutest and boldest thinkers of any time, Abelard, dared to
demonstrate the fallibility of the dogmas of the Church, and to vindicate the independence of philosophical speculation, with an
energy which gathered around him thousands of enthusiastic disciples. The sunny
air of Provence began to resound with
REACTION AGAIN8T THE CHURCH. 73
the ardent poetry of the Troubadours, free in tone, glowing
in colour, full of the joys of this world, and the passions of love and war.
From Italy news spread on every side, that the great code of the Emperor
Justinian had been discovered; it was read and taught in Bologna with untiring zeal, to a concourse of eager listeners; and a picture was
unfolded before the eyes of a wondering generation, of a bygone period, in
which a united government was really all-powerful, and the heads of the Church
were only its first servants and officers. The effect of this was
powerfully felt in Germany as in Home. The abbots in Germany complained that
even their own monks could not be got away from their legal studies to attend
to the services of the Church. Arnold of Brescia addressed the Roman citizens with electrifying eloquence, and called up before them the
image of the old Populus Romania, inciting them to open rebellion against the
temporal power of a Church, which was, he said, a scandal to religion and
morals, and ought to be made to disburse its treasures for the public
good.
The Papal power had however been too firmly established since the time
of Gregory VII., to succumb to this first movement. Too
many important interests were bound up with it, and
every antagonist was met by a host of enthusiastic admi
74 HISTORY OF THE CRU8ADES.
rers or energetic partisans, and, as usual, an unsuccessful rebellion only served to strengthen the power and ambition of
the government. About 1140 it was principally the Abbot Bernard of Clairvaux,
who in France and Upper Italy kept the people to their allegiance towards the
Pope and the Church. He was sufficiently well grounded in
philosophy not to shun the conflict with Abelard; he brought back the great
Order to which he belonged to strict rules and hard study; he won over the
Lombards and Provenfals, who for a time had upheld a schis-matical pope, by his impassioned and persuasive eloquence. The weak and sickly man gained
the ear of the whole population of the West. Without ambition, and free from
passion, by nature contemplative and quiet, Bernard obtained
a European influence, solely by his fervent devotion
to the leading ideas of the time. His letters, in
which much paius was evidently bestowed on the elegance of tho style, and the
impressiveness and sentiment of the imagery, were current in all the land,
breathing a still dominant and irresistible spirit.
He him* self would be nothing more than a plain and humble
monk; any call to leave the walls of his beloved Clairvaux for a higher place
he obstinately refused to obey; but kings listened to his sermons, and Pope
Eugene thought absolute reverence for the Abbot his greatest virtue.
TROUBLED STATE OF EUROPE.
75
Under these circumstances, Europe was obviously not in a favourable
state for another great under* taking for the relief of Jerusalem, and warfare
against the Turks. The political condition was no less
unfavourable. The general confusion into which Gregory VII. had thrown all the
European nations, and which, like an earthquake following a volcanic outbreak,
had found vent in the First Crusade, was at an end.
Political power hacl everywhere gained strength,
• the European States showed signs of new life, and great national interests
were fermenting. Germany was under the rule of the first king of the race of
the Hohen-Stauffen, Conrad III. Always an opponent of the Popes, he was constantly at war with their allies, particularly the mighty
sovereign house of Guelf. The latter, when conquered in Germany, called foreign
comrades to their aid,—the turbulent Hungarians from the east, the ambitious
Norman King of Naples, Roger II., from the south. Conrad, on the
other hand, entered into an alliance with the Emperor Manuel of Constantinople,
who, like himself, had suffered endless vexations from
the Normans and the Hungarians. Roger hereupon
determined instantly to fall upon the Greek provinces with redoubled
vigour, and earnestly begged King Louis to support him either with a fleet
against
76 HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES.
Manuel, or by land against the German king. In a word, Europe was split
into two great alliances, on one side the German king
with most of his princes and the Greek Emperor; on the other, the Guelfs, Louis
of France, the Hungarians, and Roger of Naples. In this state of things, no one
thought of a Crusade, least of all the Syrian Franks, who wished indeed for the arrival of a few detached bodies of troops, but not for
the presence of a whole army, in their land.
It happened, however, that King Louis VII., on the occasion of an
insurrection in the town of Vitry, in Champagne, stormed the place, cut down a number of the inhabitants, and, amongst
other buildings, burnt the churches also. His excitable temper made him
ungovernable in rage, and crushed by remorse after the first outburst was over;
he was accessible to but one idea at a time, and incapable of taking any comprehensive views. No sooner was the battle ended
than he repented, with horror and bitterness of spirit, his offence against the
churches, feared for the salvation of his soul, and vowed a Crusade as the
expiation for his crime. Bernard, to whom he applied for assistance,
tried to dissuade him, saying that it was better to fight against the sinful
inclinations of his own heart, than against the Turks. When, however, the Kong obtained from
ST. BERNARD. 77
the Pope an order that Bernard should preach in
behalf of the Crusade, he, with humble obedience, exerted all his talent in aid
of the purpose which he disapproved, and with such success that in France an
army of seventy thousand knights joined the King. King Roger joined the undertaking with great eagerness, in the full hope of
involving the French monarch in a quarrel with the Greeks by the way, and of
thus being enabled to carry out Bohe-mund's old plans against Constantinople.
In the meantime, Bernard had gone to Germany, but at first found very
little sympathy from either king or people. This was natural enough. An
uncommonly strong resolution was needed in order to leave all domestic cares
and quarrels, from purely religious motives, and to march straight away to the East, there to make an alliance with those who had been enemies
hitherto, and thus indirectly to break off with Emperor Manuel, who had been
a faithful ally. But Bernard did not despair. One Sunday, when Conrad was
hearing him preach, he suddenly addressed from the pulpit such
warning, promising, and threatening words to the King, that he was overcome,
and in a soft fit of repentant piety, put on the cross. The number of knights
who accompanied him was, however, small, and the chief part of
the German Crusaders
consisted of rabble, of the stamp of the
78 HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES.
Tafurs. The Pope, who, like Urban in 1095, put himself at the head of the whole undertaking, was little pleased with this
reinforcement, and blamed the King for putting on the cross
without asking leave from Rome; to which the King could only reply that the
Holy Spirit Ijloweth where it listeth, and allows no time for tedious
solicitations.
Both armies marched down the Danube, to Constantinople,
in the summer of 1147. At the same moment King
Roger, with his fleet, attacked not the Turks, but the Greek seaport towns of
the Morea. Manuel thereupon, convinced that the large armies were designed for
the destruction of his empire in the first place, with the greatest exertions, got together troops from all his provinces, and entered into a half-alliance with the Turks of Asia Minor. The mischief
and ill-feeling was increased by the lawless conduct of the German hordes; the
Greek troops attacked them more than once; whereupon numerous voices were raised in Louis's headquarters, to demand open war against the faithless Greeks. The kings
were fully agreed not to permit this, but on arriving in Constantinople they
completely fell out, for while Louis made no secret
of his warm friendship for Roger, Conrad promised the Emperor of Constantinople
to attack the Normans as soon as the Crusade should be ended. This was
THE 8EC0ND CRUSADE.
79
o bad beginning for a united campaign in the East, and moreover, at every step eastward, new difficulties arose. The German
army, broken up into several detachments, and led without ability or prudence,
was attacked in Asia Minor by the Emir of Iconium, and cut to pieces, all but a
few hundred men. The French, though better appointed, also
suffered severe losses in that country, but contrived, nevertheless, to reach
Antioch with a very considerable force, and from thence might have carried the
project which the second Baldwin had conceived in vain, namely, the defence of the north-eastern frontier, upon which, especially since
Zenki had made his appearance, the life or death of the Christian States
depended. But in vain did Prince Raymond of Antioch try to prevail upon King Louis to take this view, and to attack without delay the most formidable of all their adversaries, Noureddin. Louis would not hear or do anything till he had
seen Jerusalem, and prayed at the Holy Sepulchre. The brilliant prince had
better success with Louis's wife, Eleanora, the Golden-footed Queen, as the Greeks called her, whose favour he won by such open
homage, that Louis flew into a violent passion, and ordered an instantaneous departure from Antioch. In Jerusalem he was welcomed
by Queen Melisende (now regent, during her son's minority,
after Fulco's death), with praise and
80 HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES.
gratitude, because he had not taken part in the distant wars of the Prince of Antioch, but had reserved his
forces for the defence of the holy city of Jerusalem. It was now resolved to
lead the army against Damascus, the only Turkish town whose
emir had always refused to submit to either Zenki or
Noureddin. Nevertheless Noureddin
instantly collected all his available forces, to succour the besieged town
against the common enemy. It appeared as though, if
Damascus should not fall before his arrival, a great collision must inevitably
take place. Events however took a curious turn. On
the one hand, Melisende had heard that if the town were taken, Louis intended
to give it, not to her, but to a French Count; on the other, the Emir could not
doubt that if Noureddin should relieve the town, his supremacy could no longer
be resisted. Both Queen and Emir were equally dissatisfied with either prospect. To these small rulers, the hostility
between East and West, Islam and Christianity, had become indifferent;
they wished for nothing but the continuance of their own
comfortable local rule, without the interference of the
great oppressive potentates. Accordingly, a
secret compact was made between Jerusalem and Damascus, in consequence of which
the Syrian barons, by treacherous manoeuvres, forced King
Louis to raise the siege, and the Emir then hastened to send the
WRECK OF THE SECOND CRUSADE. 81
joyful news to Noureddin, that he need give himself no further trouble.
The German king, long since tired of his powerless position, returned home in
the autumn of 1148, and Louis, after much pressing, stayed
a few months longer, and reached Europe in the following spring. The whole
expedition, undertaken in a ferment of piety, just as a man might dedicate a
taper, or found a chapel; undertaken without reference to the
great political relations, or the true interests of the
respective States, had been wrecked, without honour and without result, by the
most wretched personal passions, and the most narrow and selfish policy. We see
in the First Crusade the strength, in the Second
the weakness of mediaeval religious feeling. It
was only fitted for rapid, violent, and instant action; lasting combination,
fruitful action, or enduring results, it was unable to produce. It evaporated
in heated enthusiasm, and narrow7
contempt of the world; it rushed madly on, with eyes
turned to heaven, in expectation of some wondrous miracle, and fell crashing to
the ground, its feet entangled in some miserable creeping weed.
Speedy, irresistible, overwhelming retribution overtook the Syrian
Franks for their folly. King Louis had hardly set sail, when Noureddin arose
more terrible than his father had ever been. He
G
82 HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES.
first attacked Antioch, and misfortune rudely overtook Prince Raymond after all his social
triumphs. He was killed in battle, half his army destroyed, and his territories
traversed in all directions by the victors. No less heavily did Noureddin
visit the rest of the dukedom of Edessa on this side the Euphrates. Count Joscelin was taken prisoner,
and the country finally subjugated by the Turks. The power which Zenki had
founded rose higher and higher against the weak bulwarks of the Christian
States. Noureddin grasped it with a firm and steady hand, embracing the whole
of the East in a comprehensive
glance, allied now with Cairo, how with Ico-nium, and even on friendly terms
with the Greek Emperor Manuel. He had inherited the bravery, earnestness, and
religious zeal of his father, and he was especially distinguished by an
unwearied spirit of order and regularity, which showed
itself in his private dealings as strict
conscientiousness, and in his political conduct as methodical forethought. His
serious and thoughtful nature could only be roused by the strongest religious
motives. Against the meanest of his subjects he
appeared before the judge, like any other citizen, and never departed a
hair's-breadth from the precepts of the law, or was unfaithful
for a single moment to the principles he had once recognised as true. His Court had the same
NOUREDDIN, 83
serious tone; there was little outward splendour, bat the Sovereign
never relaxed from his silent and dignified carriage. All who were about his
person aeqtrired a subdued and careful demeanour, and his relations and great Courtiers dared not be guilty of any wantonness or insolence, for
their master was as inexorable to offenders as he was just to merit. All the
harshest part of his resolute nature was felt by the Christians and their
friends. He burdened his Christian subjects with intolerable taxes,
the produce of which was devoted to the holy war. He excited the fanaticism of
Islam against them by every means in his power. In all the neighbouring Turkish States he possessed friends and adherents in the most
pious priests, the holiest dervishes, and the
penitent fakirs, through whose influence the mass of the people were roused to
such enthusiasm, that not one of the neighbouring Princes would have dared to
disregard Noureddin's call to arms. The Sultan did not forgive the Emir of Damascus his treaty with Jerusalem. " Damascus," he said, " is
useless to the cause of Islam, and the Christians will take it if I do not
anticipate them." Every kind of warfare, every means of victory were
justified, in his eyes, by this argument. He sowed dissension between
the Emir and his Officers by one agent, and by another between the
g 2
84
HISTORY OP THE CRUSADES.
people of Damascus and their ruler, whose principal vizier, a Kurdish
chieftain, Eyoob, was also in intimate correspondence with his
brother Shirkuh, Noureddin 's chief officer. The prey
was thus completely surrounded, and in the year 1154 Noureddin took the town and its dependencies without a blow. Thus the whole eastern
frontier of Jerusalem was laid bare to his victorious arms.
Meanwhile the Christians did their utmost to render success easy to him. It never occurred to King Baldwin III. to
secure Damascus against him, either by taking
possession of it himself, or by sending assistance to the Emir. Instead of this
he turned the politics of his country into a channel which quickly led to the
catastrophe. He directed his arms not against the strong and really dangerous enemy, but against the weakest and most impotent of his
neighbours, against Egypt. He took Ascalon in 1153, and in 1156 he made
destructive inroads as far as the Nile. The consequence was that Egypt, until
now exceedingly jealous of Noureddin, was compelled to call on him
for aid, and Baldwin's scattered forces were several times almost cut to pieces
by the Sultan. Nevertheless, in 1164, Baldwin's brother Amalric, who
succeeded him, obstinately pursued the same disastrous
course. He was a fat, solemn, stammering man, with a great
CAUTION OF NOUREDDIN.
85
taste for the study of history and geography, for legal and theological
researches, and a strong propensity for sensual indulgence,
which he knew how to excuse with dry humour; but above all, he was
eager in the pursuit of gold or treasure. In order to extort money, he began a
new war with Egypt immediately upon coining to the throne. He obtained considerable sums, but at the same time inspired such a feeling of desperation, that one party in Egypt
unconditionally embraced Noureddin's cause; and his vizier, Shirkuh, led a
troop of cavalry across the desert into the country, on whose appearance
Ainalric retreated, utterly disheartened, into Palestine. Fortune once more offered him means of escape. Shirkuh behaved with the greatest insolence as the conqueror and ruler of Egypt, and the Caliph, a
stupid and apathetic man, was a puppet in his hands. But the Caliph's vizier
Shawer, enraged at the Kurdish chief, suddenly changed
sides, and now appealed to King Amalric for relief. Shirkuh was unable to
resist with his handful of light cavalry, and hastened to Noureddin at Damascus to beg for reinforcements, describe the thoroughly disorganized and
rotten condition of Egypt, and plan a systematic conquest of
that country. Noureddin hesitated. These designs were too
remote and uncertain for his cautious mind; he thought
86 HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES.
the volatile, cunning, and foolhardy Shirkuh deficient
in the necessary foresight and trustworthiness,
and at last, in 1166, only confided to him a small division, which was repulsed
by Auialric on its arrival in Egypt. The country became, in fact, a Frankish
province, Cairo was garrisoned by Christians, and a considerable
yearly tribute was paid to Jerusalem. It was an unexpected, and, properly used,
would have been an immense gain to the Christian cause. But once more
everything was ruined by Amalric's narrow selfishness. He thought he could
wring more spoil from Egypt, scoffed at the notion of
its resistance, and in 1168 demanded, under the threat of a devastating war, a
tribute of *wo million pieces of gold. This was too much for the Vizier to
bear; his deepest feelings of indignation were roused; "Let Shirkuh destroy us," he cried, " we
shall at least not have submitted to unbelievers." In spite of the recent
disagreements, he once more implored Noureddin's help. The Sultan saw that
he had no choice left. This time Shirkuh hastened across the desert with eight thousand horsemen, defeated all the preparations of the Franks by his
rapid movements, and while Amalric still thought him on Asiatic ground he was
before Cairo, welcomed by the acclamations of its inhabitants. Hereupon
RISE OF U ALA DIN.
87
Amalric quitted the country for ever, and Shirkuh took care that it
should not again be lost to the Turkish rule. A fortnight after the retreat of
the Franks, his young nephew, Saladin, ordered the Vizier Shawer to be arrested
and executed, and the feeble Caliph gave the vacant
office, and with it the government of the country, to the Turkish conqueror. When, a few weeks after," Shirkuh died, Saladin, with
Noureddin's sanction, succeeded him.
He was then in the first fresh bloom of youth, and had given but few proofs of political or military
talent. He had been living in the gardens of Damascus; dividing his time
between scientific studies and social pleasures, and had followed his uncle to
Egypt with the greatest reluctance. " I was as miserable," he said later, " as though I had been led to death."
He did not, as we see, seek fortune, but she sought him. Once in action,
however, he showed himself energetic and ardent; his mind developed itself
largely and vigorously, each successive difficulty and danger called forth, out of his joyous and pleasure-loving nature,
the highest faculties of dominion and conquest He had nothing of Noureddin's somewhat pedantic manners; he loved to be
surrounded by happy faces, and to lay aside his external dignity in personal intercourse, sure of being able at any
moment to resume
88
HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES.
the character of an absolute commander. He was not so stern a judge as
Noureddin towards others or towards himself; he often acted with great indulgence, and sometimes also with harsh
and arbitrary caprice, but was afterwards ready
to acknowledge his injustice, and to make ample
amends. He was altogether more amiable, frank, and natural than Noureddin; his
was one of those splendid natures, which, in the plenitude of
genius, half unconsciously grasp the dominion over a
people, but know no other rule or limit than their own personal power and inspiration. They in every sense overstep the bounds of
everyday life, they break through all rules, and not unfrequently neglect the
commonest duties; they feel their own strength, and are possessed with the
desire to give full scope to their faculties. The young commander, who a year
before had angrily lamented that the command of the Sultan had driven him to endure fatigue and hardship, now held a vast kingdom in his
firm and supple grasp; he had no feelings save those of a born ruler, and all
who gainsaid him felt the whole force of his resentment. Several insurrections
in Egypt were put down with such promptitude and so much
bloodshed, that the people in fear and trembling gave up
all thoughts of rebellion; and when, in the year 1171, the faint
saladin's supremacy. 89
hearted Caliph made a feeble attempt at independence,
the news suddenly spread through the land that he had ceased to live; and
the race of the Fatimites was extinct after a reign of two hundred y&trs. To none was the rise of Saladin more dangerous
than to the Franks in Palestine, who were now surrounded, and threatened on all sides by a united, unmerciful, and ever restless power.
Noureddin on the east and Saladin on the west, had only to advance with
their masses of troops, aud the Frankish States must have been crusted at once
by the mere force of numbers. But an unforeseen complication of
affairs on the side of the enemy delayed the catastrophe for a few years; it
happened that one of the great Turkish rulers had for the present moment a
personal interest in maintaining the existence of the
Christians.
Saladin had come into Egypt as Noureddin's
subaltern, and ruled there with the title of the Sultan's viceroy. In reality,
he governed quite independently, owing to the great
distance between Damascus and Cairo, and the necessity of quick and decisive
measures in Egypt. It was however certain that
his absolute sovereignty would cease directly the two countries should be
united by the conquest of Palestine; and for this reason Saladin delayed under
every conceivable pretext whenever
00
HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES.
Noureddin sent him orders to begin the holy war. Noureddin endured this
for two years, and then sent for his nephew Saifeddin from Mosul to Damascus, entrusted to him the government of Syria,, and prepared to
march in person at the head of a mighty army, in order to
call the ambitious upstart to account. Saladin in the meantime conquered Nubia
and part of Arabia, in order to take refuge there on the appearance of his
angry chief. At, this important crisis a higher power .interposed in favour of- the younger potentate. In the year 1174 Sultan Noureddin and
King Amalric died within a short time of each other, both leaving sons under
age, who became the centres of anarchy and party feud. Thus Saladin, yet in the
flower of life, beheld a boundless field open before him, and
the future destiny of the East within his grasp. His first step was to declare
to the ambitious emirs and pretenders to power in Noureddin's dominions that he
should resent eveiy injury to young Ismael as one offered to himself, and that he looked upon the son of his benefactor as his natural
ward. But when Ismael came forward with unexpected vigour, and humbled all his
relations and officers beneath decisive and rapid strokes, Saladin
suddenly changed his policy, appeared with an army in Syria, conquered Damascus, and as an open proclamation of
DECLINE OF THE FRANK IS H 8TATES. 01
his own supremacy, assumed the title of Sultan. Several years were
passed in confusion and fighting, during which the Christians were blind enough to take Saladin's part. In 1181 Ismael died,
Saladin strained every nerve, and in the course of three campaigns, reduced all
the Syrian emirs, those of Mesopotamia, and at last of Mosul itself to acknowledge his supremacy. In the year 1184, he was sole ruler from
the sources of the Nile as far as the river Tigris, and now he began the last
decisive attack upon the Christians, whom, spite of the general largeness of his mind, he hated with relentless hate, worthy of
Zenki or Noureddin. . In the Frankish States the near
approach of dissolution was foretold by inward decline,
by division and anarchy, by miserable cowardice, and insolent rashness. The
young King Baldwin IV. lay incurably ill with leprosy; they sought,
as his future heir, a husband for his sister Sibylla,
and Baldwin hastily pronounced in favour of Count Guy de Lusignan, a Gascon
bully, without wealth or power, and what was worse, without understanding or
character, so that his elevation provoked a storm of indignation throughout the kingdom. Two great parties were instantly formed. At
the head of one stood nomi* nally Baldwin and Guy, but really Reginald of
Chatillon, a desperado athirst for war and plunder,
92
HISTORY OP THE CRUSADES.
and physically and morally ungovernable; a man who under other
circumstances might have been a common pirate, or possibly a great conqueror;
he fully perceived the desperate state of affairs, and exhorted the
Christians—as at the worst they could but lose their
lives—to fight without delay or cessation. The opposing barons ranged
themselves against him under the former regent, Count Raymond of Tripoli, a clever but vacillating and weak man, who, halting
between honesty and ambition, aspired to the crown, half
from selfish, half from patriotic motives, and warmly advocated a peaceful and
yielding policy towards Saladin, as the only chance of safety. Amid these
hopeless disputes, Saladin's mighty onslaught burst upon them, from Egypt, from
Damascus, and from the sea, simultaneous,
and well combined, with armies each more numerous than the whole Christian
force. Once more disturbances on the Tigris, in which the Sultan was involved,
gave the Franks a moment's breathing-time; Raymond of Tripoli used it to remove the incapable Guy, and proclaim Sibylla's son heir to the throne;
but when King Baldwin sank under his disease, and the royal boy died unexpectedly, Sibylla, in spite of all objections, recalled her husband,
and placed the crown upon his head. The Count of
Tripoli, beside himself with rage,
DANGER OF THE CHRISTIANS. 93
forgot every consideration of duty, and applied to Saladin for help.
Guy and Sibylla thought themselves fortunate to obtain by heavy
sacrifices an armistice from the mighty Sultan, who showed himself merciful from contempt. But they were not strong enough to compel
Count Reginald to keep the peace; from the fortresses of the Arabian desert he
sallied forth and attacked the peaceful caravans on their passage, and thereupon Saladin declared the measure to be full. The Count of Tripoli, in
his anger against Guy, allowed the immense army which Saladin brought from
Damascus to pass through his dominions, and on the 1st May, 1187, Saladin
gained his first victory over the advanced Christian troops posted on
the river Kishon, and led his overwhelming army upon Jerusalem. Before
this terrible danger party hatred at last was silent; the Christians collected all their forces, and even the Count of Tripoli repenting the
fearful consequences of his breach of faith, joined his former adversaries.
But even so, they were far inferior in numbers and in generalship to their antagonist. On the 5th of July a battle was fought at
Tiberias, which, in consequence of Guy's utter weakness and incompetence, and Saladin's energetic dispositions, resulted
within the first hour in the total destruction of the Christians. The greater part of
their knights lay dead
04 HISTORY bP THE CRUSADES.
on the field, the Count of Tripoli escaped with a few
followers by rapid flight only to die in a few days conscience-stricken and
broken-hearted. King Guy, Reginald of Chatillon, and many of the principal
barons, were taken prisoners. Saladin received them in his tent, and with consolatory words offered a refreshing drink to the wearied King;
but when Count Reginald reached out his hand for the cup, he clove the head of
the forsworn breaker of treaties with his sword, so that he fell with a groan
and died on the spot. The terrific news of the defeat spread
through the land, destroying all remaining strength or courage. Towns and castles opened their gates wherever the victorious
troops appeared; Tyre alone was defended by the opportune arrival of
an Italian fleet under the Marquis Conrad of Montferrat.
Jerusalem, which, as a holy city, Saladin wished to take by treaty,
capitulated on the 3rd of October, after an investment of three weeks.
Saladin's career of victory did not yet extend as far as Tripoli and Antioch,
but the kingdom of Jerusalem, the pride and
centre of the Christian rule, was destroyed.
95
Although after the failure of the Second Crusade the interest felt by the
Western nations in the kingdom of Jerusalem had greatly
diminished, still the news of the loss of the Holy City
fell like a thunderbolt on men's minds. Excitement,
anger, and grief were universal; once more before its final extinction the
flame which had kindled the mystic war of God blazed high in the hearts of men.
" What a disgrace, what an affliction," cried
Pope Urban III., " that the jewel which the second Urban won for Christendom should
be lost by the third !" He vehemently exhorted the Church and
all her faithful to join the war, worked day and night, prayed, sighed, and so wore himself out with grief and anger that he sickened and died in
a few weeks. His successor, Gregory VIII., and after him Pope Clement III., were inspired by the same feeling, and exerted themselves for the great
cause with untiring energy.
96 HISTORY OP THE CRUSADES.
At the time of the First Crusade, Pope Urban II. had, as we have seen,
preached but once, and then left the ardour of visionary enthusiasm to take its
own ♦effect; but now Gregory VIII. sent legates through every country, and through them watched the progress
of arming, made arrangements for the cost of the expedition, imposed, a
universal tax, called Sa-ladin's tithe, on all classes of the European population, had the plans laid before him, removed political difficulties, and allayed dissensions, which might have hindered the
departure of the armies,—in a word, he acted as though he had been the monarch
of a large, warlike, and wrell
administered kingdom. The effect was wonderful. In 1185 a number of English barons had put on the cross, on hearing of Saladin's menacing
progress; towards the end of 1187 the heir to the throne, Richard, followed
their example; some months later, King Henry II. had a meeting with his former
enemy, Philip Augustus of France, at Gisors, where they vowed to abandon
their earthly quarrels, and to become warriors of the everlasting God. Nearly
the whole nobility, and a number of the lower class of people were carried away
by their example. In Italy, Genoa had long been urging on the Pope, who in his turn succeeded in gaining over Pisa, which had always
been hostile to the Genoese; King William of Sicily fitted out his fleet, and
was
•
THE WEST RI8ES TO ABM8.
97
only prevented by death from joining it himself. From Denmark and Scandinavia pilgrims thronged to Syria both by land and by
water; in Germany, now as formerly, the zeal was not so great, until in March,
1188, the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, at the age of near seventy, put on the
cross, and by his ever firm and powerful will collected
together a mass of nearly a hundred thousand pilgrims. All the Western nations rose to arms.
The news of this enormous movement reached the East, where at first it
was hardly believed, but grew louder and more threatening every day, and the ferocious war-cry of Europe was answered by a voice of
defiance quite as eager. Saladin had studied his antagonists with the eye
of a true statesman, and had organized his dominions
almost according to the Western system. Under an
oath of allegiance and service in war, he granted to each of his emirs a town
on feudal tenure; its surrounding land they again divided among their
followers; the Sultan thus attached those wandering hordes of horsemen to the
soil, and kept those restless spirits permanently together. He then
invoked the religious zeal of all Mahomedans with such
success that, partly from fanaticism and partly from love of plunder, volunteers flocked to his standard from every quarter, from the
depths of the Arabian desert, from
H
98 HI8T0EY OF THE CRUSADES.
the country between the Euphrates and the Tigris, from Persia and
Kurdistan. The warlike robbers and hunters of the Caucasus joined his camp at
the same time as the nomads of Bulgaria, with their cattle and camels j from the frontiers of Nubia came crowds of Negroes, "
a people of fiends and devils," said the Franks, " about whom nothing
is white but their eyes and teeth." These masses dispersed, it is true, at
the beginning of every winter, and the Sultan was
then left for a few months with only his feudal troops; but on the return of
fair weather they again collected in ever-increasing numbers round that
nucleus. The arming of the East was not even confined to the territories of
Islam. Saladin well knew the
mutual hatred which divided the Greek Byzantines and the Latin Franks, and kept
so skilfully alive in the Emperor Isaac Angelos the fear of the insolence of
the Western soldiers, that he concluded an offensive and defensive alliance with Saladin against those who shared his own faith.
On the island of Cyprus Isaac Comnenus had founded a separate kingdom in open
revolt against the Emperor, and although he was on terms of bitter hostility
with the Greek Emperor, Saladin won them both over to his policy, so that the ships of Cyprus joined the Egyptian fleet in guarding the
coasts of Syria. Even the
PREPARATIONS IN TBE EAST. 99
Armenians of Cilicia and the Euphrates, whose very existence had been
saved by the First Crusade, he contrived to attach to his side. The whole East,^ from the Danube to the
Indus, from the Caspian Sea to the sources of the Nile, prepared with one
intent to withstand the great invasion of Europe. Amid cares and preparations
which had reference to three-quarters of the globe, Saladin neglected
his nearest enemy, the feeble remnant of the Christian States in Syria, which,
although unimportant in themselves, were of great consequence as landing-places
for the invading Western nations during the
approaching war. The small principalities of Antioch and
Tripoli still existed, and in the midst of the Turkish forces, the Marquis
Conrad of Montferrat still displayed the banner of the cross upon the ramparts
of Tyre. It seems as if in this instance Saladin had abandoned himself too much to the superb and easy carelessness of his
nature. Hitherto he had not shrunk from
the most strenuous exertions; but he was so certain of his victory, that he
neglected to strike the final blow. Not until the autumn of 1187 did he begin the siege of Tyre; and for the first time in his life found a dangerous
adversary in Conrad of Montferrat, a man of cool courage and keen
determination, whose soul was unmoved by religious enthusiasm, and equally free
from weakness or indecision; so that
u 2
100 HI8TORY OP THE CRUSADES.
under his command the inhabitants of the city repulsed every attack with increasing assurance
and resolution. Saladin hereupon
determined to try starvation, which a strict blockade by sea and land was to
cause in tfce town; but in June, 1188, the Sicilian fleet appeared, gave the
superiority by sea to the Christians, and brought relief to Tyre. The Sultan retreated, and marched through the defenceless provinces of Antioch and Tripoli, but there too he left the
capitals in peace upon the arrival of the Sicilian fleet in their waters. The
following summer he spent in taking the Frankish fortresses
in Arabia Petraea, the possession of which was important to him in order to
secure freedom of communication between Egypt and Syria. Meanwhile the reinforcements
from the West were pouring into the Christian seaport towns. In the first place the
two military and religious Orders, the Templars and the Knights of St. John,
had collected munitions of war of every kind from all their European
possessions, and increased the number of their mercenaries to fourteen thousand
men. King Guy also had ransomed himself from captivity and had gone
to Tripoli, where by degrees the remnant of the Syrian barons, and pilgrims of
all nations, gathered round him. They took the right resolution, to remain no
longer inactive, but, with the gigantic preparations in
SIEGE OF PTOLEMAIS.
101
Europe iu prospect, to begin the attack at once. On the 28th of August,
1189, Guy commenced the siege of the strong maritime fortress of Ptolemais (St.
Jean d'Acre). A fleet from Pisa had already joined the Sicilian
one; in October there arrived twelve thousand Danes and Frisians, and in
November a number of Flemings, under the Count of Avesnes, French knights under
the Bishop of Beauvais, and Thuringians, under their landgrave, Louis. Saladin,
roused from his inactivity by these events, hastened to
the spot with his army, and in his turn surrounded
the Christian camp, which lay in a wide semicircle round Ptolemais, and was
defended by strong entrenchments within and without. It formed an iron ring
round the besieged town, which Saladin, spite of
all his efforts, could not break through. Each wing of the position rested upon
the sea, and was thus certain of its supplies, and able to protect the landing
of the reinforcements, which continually arrived in constantly increasing numbers,—Italians, French,English and Germans, Normans
and Swedes. " If on one day we killed ten," said the Arabs, " on
the next, a hundred more arrived fresh from the West." The fighting was
incessant by land and by sea, against the town and
against the Sultan's camp. Sometimes the Egyptian fleet drove the Christian
ships far out to sea; and Saladin could then succour
102
HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES.
the garrison with provisions and fresh troops, till new Frankish
squadrons again surrounded the harbour, and only a few intrepid divers could
steal through between the hostile ships. On land, too, now one side and now the
other was in danger. One day the Sultan scaled the Christian
entrenchments, and advanced close to the walls of the
city, before the Franks rallied sufficiently to drive him back by a desperate
attack; but they soon took their revenge in a night sortie, when they attacked
the Sultan in his very tent, and he narrowly escaped by
rapid flight. Against the town their progress was very slow, as the garrison,
under an able and energetic commander, Bohaeddin, showed itself resolute and
indefatigable. One week passed after another, and the condition of the Franks became painfully complicated.
They could go neither backwards nor forwards; they could make no impression on
the walls; nor could they re-embark in the face of an active enemy. There was
no choice but to conquer or die; so preparations were made for a long sojourn; wooden barracks, and for the princes even
stone houses were built, and a new hostile town arose all around Ptolemais. In
spite of this the winter brought innumerable hardships. In that small space
more than a hundred thousand men were crowded together, with
insufficient shelter, and
SIEGE OP PTOLEMAIS.
103
uncertain supplies of wretched food; pestilential diseases soon broke
out, which swept away thousands, and were intensified by the
exhalations from the heaps of dead. Saladin retreated from
their deadly vicinity to more airy quarters on the adjacent
hills; his troops also suffered from the severe weather, but were far better
supplied than the Christians with water, provisions,and
other comforts, as the caravans from Cairo and Bagdad met in
their camp, and numbers of merchants displayed in glittering booths all kinds
of Eastern wares. It was an unexampled assemblage of the forces of
two quarters of the world round one spot, unimportant in itself, and chosen almost by accident. Our own times have seen a counterpart to it in
the siege of Sebastopol, which, though in a totally different form, was a new
act in the same great struggle between the East and the West. Happily the
Western nations did not derive their warlike stimulus from religious
sources, and they displayed, if not their military, at any rate their moral
superiority, in the most brilliant manner.
Although in the fight around Ptolemais, this superiority
was doubtless on Saladin's side, there was a moment
in which Europe threatened to oppose to the mighty Sultan an antagonist as
great as himself. In May, 1189, the Emperor Frederick I. marched out of
Ratisbon with his army for Syria. He
had
104 HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES.
already ruled thirty-seven years over Germany and
Italy, and his life had been one of war and labour, of small results, but
growing fame. He was born a ruler in the highest sense of the word; he
possessed all the attributes of power; bold yet cautious, courageous and enduring, energetic and methodical,
he towered proudly above all who surrounded him, and had the highest conception
of his princely calling. But his ideas were beyond his
time, and while he tried to open the way for a distant future, he was made to
feel the penalty of running counter to the inclinations of the present
generation. It seemed to him unbearable, that the Emperor, who was extolled by
all the world as the defender of the right and the fountain-head of law, should
be forced to bow before unruly vassals or unlimited ecclesiastical power. He had, chiefly from the study of the Roman law, conceived
the idea of a state complete within itself, and strong in the name of the
common weal, a complete contrast to the existing condition of Europe, where all the monarchies were breaking up, and the crowned priest reigned
supreme over a crowd of petty princes. Under these circumstances he appeared, foreshadowing modern thoughts deep in the middle ages, like a
fresh mountain breeze dispersing the incense-laden
atmosphere of the time. This discrepancy caused the greatness and
the misfortune of
FREDERICK BARBAR08SA.
105
the mighty Emperor. The current of his time set full against him. When,
as the representative of the State, he enforced obedience
to the law, he appeared to some an impious offender
against the Holy Church; to others, a tyrant trampling on the general freedom;
and while conquering in a hun-. dred fights, he was driven from one position
after another by the force of opinion. But so commanding was the energy, so powerful the earnestness, and so inexhaustible
the resources of his nature, that he was as terrible to his foes on the last
day as on the first, passionless and pitiless, never distorted by cruelty, and never melted by pity, an iron defender of his
imperial rights.
We can only guess at the reasons which may have induced a sovereign of
this stamp to leave a sphere of domestic activity for the fantastic wars of the
Crusades. Once, in the midst of his Italian feud, when the
deeds of Alexander the Great were read aloud to him, he exclaimed, "Happy
Alexander, who didst never see Italy! happy I, had I ever been in
Asia!" Whether piety or love of fame ultimately decided him, he felt
within himself the energy to take a great decision, and at once proceeded to action. The aged Emperor once more displayed, in this last effort, the fullness of his powerful and ever-youthful nature.
For the first time
100 HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES.
during these wars, since the armed pilgrimages had begun,
Europe beheld a spirit conscious of their true object, and capable of carrying
it out. The army was smaller than any
of the former ones, consisting of twenty thousand knights, and fifty thousand
squires and foot-soldiers; but it was guided by one
inflexible, indomitable will. With
strict discipline, the Imperial leader drove all disorderly and useless persons
out of his camp, he was always the first to face every obstacle or danger, and
showed himself equal to all the political or military difficulties
of the expedition. The Greek Empire had
to be traversed first, whose emperor, Isaac, as I have before mentioned, had allied himself with Saladin; but at the sight of these
formidable masses, he shrank in terror from any hostile
attempt, and hastened to transport the German army across into Asia Minor.
There they hoped for a friendly reception from the Emir of Iconium, who was
reported to have a leaning towards Christianity ; but in the meantime the old
ruler had been dethroned by his sons, who opposed the
Germans with a strong force. They were
destined to feel the weight of the German arm. After their mounted bowmen
had harassed the Christian troops for a time with a shower of arrows, the Emperor broke their line of battle, and scattered them by a
sudden attack of cavalry in all directions, while
death Or FREDERICK BARBAROSSA. 107
at the same moment Frederick's son unexpectedly scaled the walls of
their city. The Crusaders then inarched in triumph to
Cilicia; the Armenians already yielded submissively to a
cessation of hostilities; and far and wide thoughout
Turkish Syria went the dread of Frederick's irresistible arms. Even Saladin
himself, who had boldly defied the the disorderly attacks of the hundreds of thousands before Ptolemais, now lost all hope, and announced
to his emirs his intention of quitting Syria on Frederick's
arrival, and retreating across the Euphrates. On this, every highway in the
country became alive, the emirs quitted their towns,
and began to fly with their families, their goods, and chattels, and hope rose
high in the Christian camp. This honour was reserved for the Emperor; that
which no other Prankish sword could achieve, he had done by the mere shadow of
his approach: he had forced from Saladin a confession of
inferiority. But he was not destined to see the realization of his endeavours
here, any more than in Europe. His army had entered
Cilicia, and was preparing to cross the rapid mountain torrent of the Seleph.
On the 10th of June, 1190, they marched slowly across the narrow bridge, and
the Emperor, impatient to get to the front, urged his horse into the stream,
intending to swim to the opposite shore.
The raging waters
108 HISTORY OP THE CRUSADES.
suddenly seized him, and hurried him away before the eyes of his
people. When he was drawn out, far down the river, he was a corpse. Boundlfess
lamentations resounded throughout the army; the most brilliant ornament and
sole hope of Christendom was gone; the troops arrived at Antioch in
a state of the deepest dejection. From thence a number of the pilgrims returned
home, scattered and discouraged, and a pestilence broke
out among the rest, which was fatal Lo the greater number of them: it seemed, says a chronicler, " as
though the members would not outlive their head." The Emperor's son, Duke Frederick of Suabia, reached the camp before
Ptolemais with five thousand men, instituted there the Order of the
Teutonic Knights, —who were destined hereafter to found a splendid
dominion on the distant shores of the German Ocean;—and soon afterwards
followed his father to the grave.
The highest hopes were destroyed by this lamentable
downfall. It seemed as if a stern fate had resolved
to give the Christian world a distant view of the
possibility of victory; the great Emperor might have secured it, but the
generation which had not understood him, was doomed to misery and defeat. A
second winter, with the same fearful additions of hunger and sickness, came upon the camp before
QUARRELS AMONG THE PE1NCES. 109
Ptolemais, and the measure of misfortune was filled by renewed and
bitter quarrels among the Frankish princes.
"King Guy was as incompetent as ever, and so utterly
mismanaged the Christian cause, that the Marquis Conrad of Montferrat
indignantly opposed him. Queen Sibylla, by marriage
with whom Guy had gained possession of the crown, died just at this
juncture. Conrad instantly declared that Sibylla's sister Eliza was now the only rightful heir,
and, as he held every step towards advancement to be laudable, did not for a
moment scruple to elope with her from her husband, to marry her himself, and to
lay claim to the crown. Amid all this confusion and disaster, the eyes of
the Crusaders turned with increasing anxiety towards the horizon, to catch a
glimpse of the sails which were to bring to them two fresh leaders, the kings
of France and of England. Their
preparations had not been very rapid. Henry II. of England had, even since his
oath, got into a new quarrel with Philip Augustus
of France, which only ended with his death, in 1189. His son and successor, Richard, whose zeal
had led him to put up the cross earlier than the
rest, instantly began to arrange the expedition with Philip. In his impetuous
manner, he exulted in the prospect of unheard-of triumphs; the government of
England was hastily and insufficiently provided for
110 HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES.
during the absence of the King; above all, money was needed in great
quantities, and raised by every expedient, good or bad. When some one remonstrated
with the King concerning these extortions, he exclaimed, "I
would sell London itself, if I could but find a purchaser." He legislated with the same inconsiderate
vehemence as to the discipline and order of his army:
murderers were to be buried alive on land, and at sea to be tied to the corpses
of their victims, and thrown into the water; thieves were to
be tarred and feathered; and whoever gambled for money, be he king
or baron, was to be dipped three times in the sea, or flogged naked before the
whole army. Richard led his army
through France, and went on board his splendid
fleet at Marseilles, while Philip sailed from Genoa in hired vessels. Halfway
to Sicily, however, Richard got tired of the sea-voyage, landed near Rome, and
journeyed with a small retinue through the Abruzzi and Calabria, already on the
look-out for adventures, and often engaged in bloody quarrels with the
peasants of the mountain villages. When he at last arrived in Sicily, his
unstable mind suddenly underwent a total change; a quarrel
with the Sicilian king, Tancred, drove the Holy Sepulchre entirely out of his
head. Now
fighting, now negotiating, he stayed nine months at
Messina,—hated
RICHARD CCET7R-DE-LI0N.
Ill
and feared by the inhabitants, who called him the lion, the savage
lion,—deaf to the entreaties of his followers, who were eager to get to Syria, and heedless and defiant to all Philip
Augustus's representations and demands. At last, the
French king, losing patience, sailed without him, and arrived at Ptolemais in April, 1191. He was received with eager joy, but did not
succeed in at all advancing the siege operations; for so
many of the French pilgrims had preceded him, that the army he brought was but
small, and though an adroit and cunning diplomatist,
a tried and unscrupulous statesman, he lacked the rough soldierly vigour and
bravery, on which everything at that moment depended. At length Richard was
again on his road, and again he allowed himself to be turned aside from his
purpose. One of his ships, which bore his betrothed bride, had stranded on the
Cyprian coast, and in consequence of the hostility of the king of
that island, had been very inhospitably received. Richard was instantly up in
arms, declared war against the Comneni, and conquered the whole island in a
fortnight; an impromptu conquest, which was of the highest importance to the Christian party in the East for centuries after.
Still occupied in establishing a military colony of his knights, he was
surprised by a visit from King
112 HI8T0RY 07 THE CRU8ADE8.
Guy, of Jerasalem, who wished to secure the support of the dreaded monarch in his party contests at home. Guy
complained to King Richard of the matrimonial offences of his rival, informed
him that Philip Augustus had declared in favour of Conrad's claims, and on the
spot secured the jealous adherence
of the English monarch. He landed on the 8th of June at Ptolemais; the
Christians celebrated his arrival by an illumination of the camp; and without a
moment's delay, by his warlike ardour, he roused the whole army out of the
state of apathy into which it had lately fallen. Day after
day the walls of the city were energetically assailed on every side. On the 8th
July, Saladin made his last attempt to raise the siege, by an attack on the
Christian entrenchments; he was driven back with great loss, whereupon he permitted the besieged to capitulate. The town surrendered,
with all its stores, after a siege of nearly three years' duration i the heroic defenders still remaining, about three thousand in number, were to be exchanged, within the space of forty days, for two thousand captive Christians,
and a ransom of two hundred thousand pieces of gold. The war, according to all
reports, had by this time cost the Crusaders above thirty thousand men.
Those among the pilgrims who were enthusiastic
NEGOTIATIONS.
113
and devout, now hoped their way would lead straight to the Holy
Sepulchre. But it soon became manifest that the feeling which had
prompted the Cru* sades was dead for ever. The news of the fall of Jerusalem
had awakened a momentary excitement in the Western
nations, but had failed to stir up the old enthusiasm. On Syrian ground, the
ideal faith rapidly gave way before substantial worldly considerations.
Richard, Guy, and the Pisans, on the one hand; Philip, Conrad, and the Genoese, on the other, were already in open discord, which was so
embittered by Richard's blustering fury, that Philip Augustus embarked at the
end of July for France, declaring upon his oath that he had no evil intentions
towards England, but determined in his heart to let Richard
feel his resentment on the first opportunity. Meanwhile negotiations had begun
between Saladin and Richard, which at first seemed to promise favourable
results for the Christians, but unfortunately the day
fixed for the exchange of the prisoners arrived before
Saladin was able to procure the whole of the promised ransom. Richard, with the
most brutal cruelty, slaughtered two thousand seven hundred prisoners in one
day. Saladin magnanimously refused the demands of his exasperated followed' for reprisals, but of course there could be no further
question of a treaty, and
i
114 HISTORY 07 THE CRUSADES.
the war recommenced with renewed fury. Richard led the army on an
expedition against Ascalon„ defeated Saladin on his march thither at Arsuf,
and advanced amid incessant skirmishes and single combats, into which he
recklessly plunged as though he had been a simple knight-errant. Accordingly
his progress was so slow that Saladin had destroyed
the town before his arrival and rendered its capture
worthless to the Christians. Again negotiations were begun, but in
January, 1192, Richard suddenly advanced upon Jerusalem, and by forced marches
quickly reached Baitnube, a village only a few miles distant from the Holy City. But there the Sultan had thrown up strong and extensive
fortifications, and after long and anxious deliberations,
the Franks returned towards Ascalon. Meanwhile Conrad of Montferrat had
placed himself in communication with Saladin, proposed to him point-blank an alliance against Richard, and by his prudent and
consistent conduct, daily grew in favour with the Sultan. The Christian camp,
on the other hand, was filled with ever-increasing discord; and the differences
between Richard and Conrad reached such a height, that the Marquis
went back to Ptolemais, and regularly beseiged the Pisans,
who were friendly to the English. Into such a miserable state of confusion had
the great European enter-
V
TREATY WITH SALADIN. 115
prise fallen for want of a good leader and an adequate object.
In April news came from England, that the King's brother, John, was in
open rebellion against him, and in alliance with France; whereupon Richard,
greatly alarmed, informed the barons that he must prepare for his departure,
and that they must definitively
choose between Guy and Conrad as their future ruler. To his great
disappointment, the actual necessities of the case triumphed over all party
divisions, and all voted for Conrad, as the only able and fitting ruler in the
country. Nothing remained for Richard, but to accede to their wishes, and as a last act of favour
towards Guy, to bestow upon him the crown of Cyprus. Conrad did not delay one
moment signing the treaty with Saladin, and the Sultan left the new King in possession of the whole line of coast taken by the Crusaders, and also ceded to him Jerusalem, where however he was to allow
a Turkish mosque to exist; the other towns of the interior were then to be
divided between the two sovereigns.
What a conclusion to a war in which the whole world had been engaged, and had made such incalculable
efforts! After the only competent leader had been snatched from the Christians
by an angry fate, the weakness and desultoriness of the others
i 2
116 HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES.
had destroyed all the fruits of conquest. The
host of devout pilgrims had beheld Jerusalem from Baitnuba, and had then been
obliged to turn their backs upon the holy spot in impotent grief. Suddenly a nameless, bold, and cunning prince made his appearance in this
great war between the two religions in the world, a man indifferent to
religion or morality, who knew no other motive than selfishness, but who followed that with vigour and consistency, and had already stretched forth his hand to grasp the crown
of the Holy Sepulchre.
But on the 2Sth April, Conrad was murdered by two Saracen assassins;
many said, at King Richard's instigation, but more
affirmed it was by the order of the Old Man of the Mountain, the head of a
fanatical sect in the Lebanon. Everything was again
unsettled by this event. The Syrian barons instantly elected Count Henry of
Champagne as their king; five days after Conrad's death he married his widow Eliza, and was perfectly ready to succeed to Conrad's
alliance with Saladin, as well as to his wife.
But King Richard, with his usual thoughtlessness, allowed the scandalous
marriage, but prevented the reasonable diplomatic arrangement As he had a certain liking for Henry, who was his nephew, he
wished to conquer a few more provinces for him in a hurry,
and to win some
FRE8H OUTBREAK OF WAR. 117
fresh laurels for himself at the same time; and accordingly began the
war anew against Saladin. A Turkish fortress was taken, when more evil tidings arrived from England, and Richard announced
that he could not remain a moment longer. The barons broke out in a general cry
of indignation, that he who had plunged them into danger, should forsake them
in the midst of it, and once more the vacillating King allowed himself to be
diverted from his purpose. Again the Christians advanced
upon Jerusalem, and again they remained long inactive at Baitnuba, not daring
to attack the city. The ultimate reason for this delay was illustrative N of
the state of things: the leaders knew that the great mass of pilgrims would disperse as soon as their vows were fulfilled by the
deliverance of the Holy Sepulchre; this would seal the destruction of the
Frankish rule in Syria, should it happen before the treaty of peace with
Saladin was concluded. Thus the ostensible object of the Crusade could not
be achieved without ruining Christianity in the East. It is impossible to give
a stronger illustration of the hopelessness and
internal conflict of all their views and endeavours at that time. They at last
turned back disheartened to Ramlah, where they were
startled by the news that Saladin had unexpectedly assumed the offensive,
attacked the
118 HISTORY OP THE CRUSADES.
important seaport town of Joppa, and was probably already in possession
of it. Richard's warlike impetuosity once more burst forth. With a handful of followers he put to
sea, and hastened to Joppa. When he came in sight of the harbour, the Turks
were already inside the town, plundering in every direction, and assailing the
last remains of the garrison. After a short
reconnoitre, Richard drove his vessel on shore, rushed with an echoing war-cry
into the midst of the enemy's superior force, and by his mighty blows actually
drove the Turks in terror and confusion out of the place. On the following day he encamped with conteraptous insolence outside the
gates, with a few hundred horsemen, when he was suddenly attacked by as many
thousands. In one instant he was armed, drove back the foremost assailants,
clove a Turk's head down to his shoulders, and then rode along the
wavering front of the enemy, from one wing to the other; " Now,"
cried he, " who will dare a fight for the honour of God?" Henceforth
his fame was such that, years after, Turkish mothers threatened their children
with "King Richard is coming," and Turkish riders
asked their shying horses if " they saw the Lion-hearted King."
But these knightly deeds did not advance the war at all. It was fortunate for the Franks that
THREE TEARS* ARMISTICE.
119
Saladin's emirs were weary of the long strife, and
the Sultan himself wished for the termination of hostilities in consequence of
his failing health. The favourable terms of the former treaty, more especially
the possession of Jerusalem, were of course no longer to be obtained. The Christians
were obliged to be content, on the 30th of August, 1192, with a three years'
armistice, according to which the seacoast from Antioch to Joppa was to remain
in the possession of the Christians, and the Franks obtained permission to go to Jerusalem as unarmed pilgrims, to pray at the Holy
Sepulchre. Richard embarked directly, without even taking measures for
ransoming the prisoners. As may easily
be imagined, the Christians were deeply exasperated
by such a peace; the Turks rejoiced, and only Saladin looked
forward with anxiety to the future, and feared dangerous consequences from the
duration of even the smallest Christian dominion in the East. The most active and friendly intercourse,, rarely disturbed by suspicion, soon began
between the two nations. On the very
scene of the struggle mutual hatred had subsided, commercial
relations were formed, and political negotiations soon followed. In the place of the mystic trophy which was the object of the religious war, Europe had gained an immense extension of
120 HISTOBY OF THE CRUSADE8.
worldly knowledge, and of wealth, from the struggle of a hundred years.
Saladin did not long survive his triumph over the combined forces of
Europe; he died on the 3rd of March, 1193, at Damascus, aged
fifty-seven. " Take this cloak/' said he on his death-bed to his servant,
" show it to the Faithful, and tell them that the ruler of the East could
take but one garment with him into the grave." He was a man who has often been idealized beyond his deserts; he was ambitious, and disdained no
means to gratify his love of power; a strict Mussulman, fanatical even to
cruelty where religion was concerned, but otherwise of enlarged mind, great
heart, generous and gay, accessible to every mental stimulus or social
impression, sometimes thoughtless in trifles, but
determined and vigorous in every great undertaking. His kingdom and its
institutions depended on his single person, and after his death the same
disorganization and disunion broke out in the Turkish Empire
that we have already observed among the Christians.
I have already asserted, and I think the facts will have convinced my
readers, that the spirit of the Crusades was dead and gone. The war itself did
not therefore end directly, but continued for nearly a
century with various intermissions. We may designate
the Crusades,—in opposition to the earlier
FAILURE OF THE CRU8ADES. 121
wars against Islam, at the head of which stood the Prankish and Greek
Emperors, and to the later, which was led by the great powers of
Europe,—as< the foreign policy of the Papal supremacy. So long as the throne
of the Vatican predominated over and led the temporal powers of Europe, the
occupants of that throne strove to direct the forces of our hemisphere upon
the Syrian coast. But the change that was now beginning manifested itself at
that point earlier than in the interior of the Western countries. The Popes
here experienced only failures, or results contrary to their wishes. A large army of pilgrims slipped from the grasp of the most powerful of all the Popes, Innocent III., and, in the pay of the Republic of
Venice, directed the force of its arms against Constantinople. For a short time
the Greek Empire was overrun with Latin knights; but the only lasting
gain was an enormous extension of Venetian commerce. The most dangerous enemy
the Papacy ever had, the Emperor Frederick II., undertook another pilgrimage in
fulfilment of a vow made in his youth. He sailed to Syria pursued by the excommunication of Pope Gregory IX.; and while the clergy of
Palestine shut their churches in his face, he obtained for the Christians, by a
masterly stroke of diplomatic policy, and without
drawing the sword, the possession of the Holy
122
BISTORT* OF THE CRUSADES.
Places; but he was forced to return home before he could complete the
negotiation, in order to defend his kingdom of Naples against
an attack from the Papal troops. Twenty
years later, the Curia once more beheld a Crusade after its own heart, when St.
Louis, burning with holy ardour, led a French army against the Sultan of Egypt.
But after a brief success, he allowed himself to be surrounded by his opponents in the flooded valley of the Nile; and the
campaign ended, without glory or advantage, in the capture of the whole
crusading army. After this defeat, the
Pope failed in all his endeavours to excite any enthusiasm for the Eastern
war; one Syrian fortress after the other fell into the hands of the victorious
Mussulmans, until at length and last of all, the dearly won Ptolemais was captured, after an obstinate resistance, in the year 1292; just at the time when Pope Boniface VIII., took the first steps towards his
great conflict with King Philip the Handsome, of France, which resulted in the
deepest humiliation of the Papal power. The system of Gregory VII. declined
simultaneously in Europe and in Asia.
It must have struck all my readers, that although during the whole
period of the Crusades, the hostility between the East and the
West was more violent, the difference between them was far less
RELATION8 BETWEEN THE EA8T AND WE8T. 128
marked than in our own days. At the present time Europe, in its
absolute superiority of arms, of culture, and of manners, looks down
upon the Eastern world much as it does upon the perishing red men of the West,
or the falling empire of China. The interval that separates European
nations from the Turks has come to be almost that between civilization and
barbarism. But in the thirteenth century the relations between the two were totally different. Both East and West were then under similar conditions as to government and intellectual culture; they were
engaged in an active contest for superiority; and we may fairly doubt which
excelled the other in intelligence. If on the one hand a whole swarm of
Turcoman horse was scattered by the Frankish chivalry;
on the other, there was no doubt that the Turkish system of warfare and
strategy was very superior to the Christian. Municipal administration and
police, security and order, external comforts and luxuries,
were on a higher level in Cairo and Damascus than either in Paris or in
London. Science and art were cultivated in Syria and Persia with at least as
much success as in Europe. In the former as well as in the latter, Aristotle
was studied, jurisprudence and theology were reduced to a
science, and poetry flourished in youthful freshness.
To
124 H18T0ET OP THE CEU8ADE8.
turn to the domain of religion: while by the influence
of politics and philosophy, the original barbarism of Islam was softened and
enriched, contrariwise, out of the deepest feelings of Christianity were evolved the lust of dominion and the most aggressive
fanaticism. In Asia both the power of the state and the religious feelings of
individuals had by this time freed themselves in a great degree from the
spiritual dominion of the Caliph, while in Europe the Papacy took every measure to destroy the power of the sovereigns and the very existence of
heretics in as determined a manner as Mahomet had once done in the East. In
short, in spite of all inherent differences, we find a decided tendency to
union and assimilation, and a strong mutual influence of each nation upon the
other, in the very midst of their hatred and warfare.
It was therefore the greatest tragedy which our historical knowledge
records, when the highly cultivated
Eastern world was devastated and destroyed for ever, a few years after
Saladin's triumphs, by an overwhelming flood of
barbarians. The savage Mongolian hordes swept down from their high central
plains, laying waste and destroying, throughout
Persia, Asia Minor, Turkistan, and Russia. It was no revivifying flood, like
that which enriched the Roman soil when the Germans in-
DESTRUCTION OP KA8TERN CIVILIZATION. 125
vaded it. Gengis Khan's hordes knew no joy beyond
building huge heaps of the skulls of the slain, and inarching their horses
over the ruins of burnt cities. Wherever they passed, there was an end to all
culture, to all the joys of life, and to the future prosperity of nations; a
dreary savage barbarism pressed upon countries which but a century
before could have rivalled in civilization the very flower of Europe. Here and
there, perchance, Islam could still enter the lists of military prowess with
the Western nations, but her intellectual vigour was . broken, and the dominion of the earth was thus for ever secured to the more
fortunate nations of our hemisphere.
It has however taken them centuries to comprehend
and to solve the problem thus set before them. We may add that they have
deserved to solve it, not only because Islam became weaker, but
also because Christianity has grown stronger; and it has grown stronger because
it has more of the nature of inward conviction, and less of an aggressive character. We have seen what caused the Crusades to fail; not Zenki's impetuosity, Noureddin's firmness, or Saladin's joyous valour. In
the great streams of history, none hopelessly sink but those who destroy
themselves. It was the heat of religious excitement which called the Crusades
into existence, and then
126
HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES.
irresistibly hurried them to perdition. We have seen how
over-excitement, thirst for the miraculous, and contempt for the world,
rendered any regular and consecutive plan of conquest in the East impossible from the very beginning. The Crusaders
despised all the earthly resources of the human mind, and thus their mystical
transports led them into every other miserable passion. With the Frank -ish
States the very existence of the Christian religion perished in the East. In modern times, men no longer travel over the world, or
found colonies, or make conquests, for religion's sake; they neither . trade
nor fight nor found colonies according to ecclesiastical
principles. It is enough if their own faith affords the
inward impulse towards justice and morality, and leaves them free to
conduct the various affairs of life according to their
own several laws. They no longer see, as in the Middle Ages, an inveterate
hostility between heaven and earth, or expect religious
perfection from the renunciation, but from the right use of earthly things.
Thus it is that this age, apparently so lukewarm in religion, has succeeded in
attaining an object which the zeal of Urban and the power of the Baldwins in
vain strove to effect. There no longer exists on earth a
hostile religion which can venture to threaten Christianity with impunity. Wherever Christian power
and Christian
TRIUMPH OP CHRISTIANITY.
127
civilization appear, the world at once recognizes, sometimes with joy and sometimes with anger, but always powerless to
resist, the presence of the conqueror and ruler. Jerusalem, for whose conquest millions once shed their blood in vain, could now be torn from
its Turkish ruler by a protocol of five lines, if
only our generation took any interest in the matter. But we now say, with St.
Bernard, " It is better to struggle against the sinful lusts of the heart,
than to conquer Jerusalem."
PAET II.
LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
CRITICAL ACCOUNT
OP
THE ORIGINAL AUTHORITIES AND THE LATER
WRITERS ON THE CRUSADES.
K
131
LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
There are more materials for a history of the First Crusade than for any
other event of the early Middle Ages. They consist of official reports, of
private communications from individual pilgrims to their friends at home; of
many current histories written by eye-witnesses ; all these, again, were
amplified by writers in Western Europe, who were not present themselves,
but who drew their statements from eye-witnesses; and finally, after a lapse of
eighty years, these documents were collected by one eminently fitted for the undertaking. It might well be imagined that such ample
materials would have secured for all times a true appreciation of the course of
events. In fact, whosoever becomes familiar with all these narratives,
is astonished at the fullness of the life therein depicted, and may hope
k 2
132 literature of the crusades.
from all these materials to obtain a competent knowledge and a thorough comprehension of the truth they contain.
The variety of the materials requires judgment in selection and arrangement. The mo3t cursory examination discovers a great difference in the nature and endowments of the various authors. Every conceivable impulse
is at work within them; but that dispassionate frame of mind alone capable of
producing a useful history is almost wholly wanting. In contemporaries we have to guard against a distortion of facts
from personal bias. Later historians again may be influenced by subsequent
events. Great care, therefore, must be taken to lay a good foundation, and to have some standard by which the various discrepancies can be
reconciled.
I. Official Reports, and Letters from Individual
Crusaders.
The number of letters and original narratives written by those actively
engaged in the First Crusade is not large, nor do they constitute the most important sources of our knowledge of
those times; but they must not be disregarded. They throw considerable light
upon many special and doubtful points. We will mention these authorities in
their regular order, in so far as we can.
THE EMPEROR ALEXIUS.
133
1. Letter from the Emperor Alexius to Count Robert
of Flanders}
The Abbot Guibert, in his history of the Crusades,
is the first to mention this letter.2 He
gives a tolerably detailed account of its contents. Mar-tene's collection
contains another version of this letter, agreeing in the main so much with
Guibert, that doubt has been thrown on the authenticity of the whole document.
The silence of Greek authors, and Guibert's known
carelessness, have increased the suspicion that this document in Martene's
collection might be one of the usual monkish manufactures of the Middle Ages,
or a free version of Guibert's text. Much that is singular in this document could not be denied. There is an absence of the high-flown official
style of the Greek Empire. The praise of the Eastern women as an inducement for
Christian Crusaders was considered unbecoming and childish, in the mouth of a
Byzantine monarch.
Without taking upon myself to defend this document as genuine, it may be asked why an intelligent Western author
should be disbelieved because a Byzantine passes over in silence the fact that
his Emperor begged for assistance from a Count of
1 Martene, Thesaur. p. 266 et seq.
1 Lappenberg, in PerU, Archir, ri. 630.
134 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
Flanders.3 It
is very probable that Guibert received the communication from the
Count Robert of Flanders himself.
2. Letter from Urban II. to Alexius}
In the summer of the year 1096, Urban II. wrote a letter to Alexius,
which has been frequently printed in the Collection of the Councils. In it the
Pope recommends the Crusaders to the care of the Emperor. The letter contains little of importance.
3. Stephen of Blots to his Wife.
The Count of Blois, as far as we can learn, wrote three times to his
wife Adela in the course of the Crusades. The first of these letters is lost,
and is unimportant towards a knowledge of the Crusades, as it merely gives
details of the journey to Constantinople.
The second letter was written from the camp at Nicaea, shortly after the
capture of that town.5 It
throws but little light upon the battles that had taken place up to that
period, but gives a good picture of the respective qualities of
the Greek Emperor and Count Stephen of Blois
shown in their relation to each other. Stephen betrays the vanity of
* See fiirther, under Guibert.
4 Frequently printed in the Collection of the Council*.
• In Mabillon, Mui. Ital. ad Calc. HUtor. Belli Sacri.
STEPHEN OP BLOIS.
135
a weak nature delighted with trifles, and manifesting itself most plainly in an assumption of humility. He admires the
Emperor and his riches; the Emperor behaves to him like a father,
and is even pleased with the absence of the Count from his court, on learning
that he is at the camp.
The third letter, written from the camp before Antioch, and shortly
previous to the capture of that city, is in many respects
the most instructive.6
At the very beginning it is stated that, for a time, Count Stephen had
been chosen by all the princes as commander-in-chief, a circumstance we find
mentioned elsewhere, but which requires some such confirmation as this. We are left totally in the dark as to the manner and importance of the
command, and in what manner he exercised his influence. No events of any
consequence followed this nomination; so that but for the Count's own
testimony, the whole affair would be involved in
considerable doubt. In the battle of Dorylaeum, for example, the army was
divided into two parts, end Stephen of Blois was with the Normans, who were
exposed to the first assault of Kilidje Arslan; but there is no mention here of
his issuing orders; on the contrary, Bohemund at once took
the command, and won the day.
• In D'Achery, Spicileg. iii. et
*eq.
ISO LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
" We learned/5
continues Stephen of Blois, " that there dwelt in Cappadocia a Turcoman
prince, by name Assam, whose lands we seized; we left
one of our princes, with many knights there, to complete the conquest/9 It
is not quite clear who was intended by this; whether it is a
mutilation of the name of Kilidje Arslan,7 then
strange to the Latins, or whether Stephen meant some
insignificant prince of the neighbourhood.
But still more interesting, spite of its brevity, is the narrative of
the defeat of the second attempt to raise the siege of Antioch made by the
princes who dwelt around it. In this passage, the
seat of the war, and the number of the combatants on both sides, are mentioned
with greater distinctness than elsewhere. We also obtain further information as
to the condition of the Christian host from the statement
which has hitherto been overlooked, that the troops were
distributed far and wide in the neigh-.bourhood, as they held a hundred and
sixty-five places and fortresses in Syria inproprio dominio.
4. Letter from Anselm of Bipemont to the
Archbishop ofBheims.9
Anselm, one of the most illustrious of the Lorraine
barons in the army of the Crusaders, corre-
7 As the earlier Byzantines call Alp Arslan.
• D'Achery, p. 431.
ANSELM OF EIPEMONT.
137
sponded with Manasses, Archbishop of Rheims. We shall find more about him in the ' Gesta Dei/ of Guibert. One only of
his letters has come down to us, written soon after the capture of Antioch, and
giving short but distinct sketches of the occurrences
before and in this city. The agreement of the statements
in his letters with those of other eyewitnesses, such as Raymund the
author of the 'Gesta Francorum/ etc., in contradistinction in the narrative of Albert of Aix, is very remarkable. As an example I would select
what occurred during the time of the fast, in 1098,—the decisive victory
of the Christians and the consequent erection of the fort in front of the
bridge-gate of Antioch. It is distinctly stated here that Bohemund and Raymond
of Toulouse went to St. Simeon's Haven to fetch workmen for the building of the fort, that they were attacked and suffered a severe loss
on their way back, and that this was subsequently avenged by a splendid victory
gained by the whole army, after which the fort was completed with little difficulty. According to Albert's account, the army was in perfect
repose when Godfrey of Bouillon received intelligence of this unfortunate
skirmish, and immediately prepared for battle.9
Count Stephen of Blois relates that the princes
9 Albert, iii. 64 et *eq.
138 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
rode without suspicion of danger to meet the people coming from St.
Simeon's Haven, and fell among enemies; that by the time the latter came up,
the princes had got all the army under arms. Anselm's narrative fully confirms this, and completely refutes Albert of Aix's statement. The princes had
ridden out with a settled purpose, at the desire of Bohemund, to secure their safe return by a movement of the whole army. The
intention was that the whole army should march, and it was
only some accidental delay that stopped the advance of all the detachments. The
' Gesta Francorum' agree with this; and even some apparent discrepancies serve
to confirm this view, when we call to mind the personal position of the author.
He was, as we shall see, a common soldier, or at any
rate what we should now call a non-commissioned officer. We can therefore
easily understand that he knew nothing of Bohemond's general orders to the
princes; he only knew that the army stood ready for action when Bohemund arrived. At that moment, says he, " nos congregati eramus in
unuin;" we, that is the Normans.10 This
does not contradict what Count Stephen says, that Bohemond arrived
"dum adhuc convenient nostri;" for Count Stephen means the whole
army. •
» Gesta.
BOHEMUND AND OTHERS.
139
It is true that these are mere trifles, but they illustrate the quality
of a narrative, and the relation it bears to other reports. It will not be
difficult for us hereafter to show, on a larger scale, the agreement among the eye-witnesses which is here obvious, and the
contradiction which they thus unanimously give to Albert of Aix; and this will
completely change our view of some of the most important transactions.
5. Letter from the Princes to all the Faithful}1
This report is signed by Bohemund, Raymond, Godfrey, and Hugo. Martene
gives the date as 1097, but it evidently was written in^July 1098. The whole is
short, and told in a summary manner. There are statements of the loss of the
army before Nicaea and Antioch, which appear exaggerated.
The notice at the end, that the King of Persia had threatened them with a new
war after Kerboga's ^defeat, and that, conjointly with the Egyptians, he would
attack them, is quite new.
0. Letter from the Princes to Pope Urban II}2
The date of this letter is not given by Fulcher; he has however
inserted the whole of it into the
11 Martene, p. 272.
13 In Fulcher, p. 399, and Reuber, Cor. Johannis, p. 399.
140 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
body of his narrative, as well as a postscript by one of the party, and
many valuable variations,13 which are noticed in the edition given by Reuber. The writers are
Bohemund, Raymond, Godfrey, the two Roberts, and Eustace of Boulogne. That Hugo
is not mentioned, seems to prove that he had
already gone on his mission to Constantinople. The greater part of the
narrative relates to the battles against Kerboga, and gives the most important
and decisive details on this subject. The scanty chronological notices, which can be obtained from the 'Gesta Francorum,' are completely
confirmed. The same may be said of the narrative of the last great battle
against Kerboga. These statements substantiate, in the most remarkable manner,
the trustworthiness of the eye-witnesses. Albert of Aix, on some special
information, asserts that the capture of Antioch by the Christians was effected
by Godfrey and not by Bohemund. The contrary assertion made in the • Gesta'
receives the most ample confirmation from the words of this document, subscribed by the two princes,—"Ego Bohemundus scalas parum
ante diem muris applied," etc.
u Fulcher, for example, has for Dorylseum in campo Jlorido ; Seuber calls it in valle Doretill*. We see here how with the Europeans the corruption arose of in valle Ozellis.
RAYMOND OF AGILE8.
141
7. Letter from the Princes, after the battle of
Ascalon.
Dodechin has handed this down to us. What little is to be said about
this document will be mentioned in the account of Ekkehard, who made use of it.
8. Letter from the Patriarch and the Princes,
to the Churches of the West.14
The contents of this letter are unimportant.
The writers state that they have captured ten capita] cities, two hundred
castles, and still have one hundred thousand warriors, not counting the common
people and the assistance of the Saints. But their trust in the Saints appears
but small, for this jubilation is followed by an earnest
appeal for help,—"Come hither, ye faithful; come hither: wheresoever only
two men are gathered together in one house, let one of the twain come to the
Holy Sepulchre."
II. Raymond of Agiles.16
In the retinue of the Count of Toulouse and of the Bishop
of Puy, were two Crusaders, the one a
14 Martene, p. 271.
u Bongars thus gives the name. In the preface he gives
the reading De Arguillers: in manuscripts we find it written
De Agilles and De Aguilers (Pertz, Archiv, vii. pp. 56, 61, 81).
I can nowhere find any reference on which he relies.
142 LITERATURE. 07 THE CRUSADES.
brave and worthy knight; the other an ecclesiastic, uneducated, but
well disposed. These two men were intimately bound together by friendship.10 The knight Pontius, Lord of Baladun, was desirous that the memory of so
many great exploits should not perish for want of a chronicler. He was constantly pressing his friend to write down, in the quiet of his tent,
the events that had occurred in the battle-field, to
edify and stir up all the faithful, and especially their friend the Bishop of
Vivars. The ecclesiastic Raymond was easily moved thereto: he wrote down day by
day what he had seen, always with the help and encouragement of his friend, until Pontius found an honourable death in battle, before the
castle of Arkas. Nevertheless he did not leave off the work begun in common
with his friend. " My best friend," said he, " died in the Lord;
but love dieth not, and in love will I finish
this work; so help me God."17
Raymond only received consecration as a priest on his way to the Holy
Land,18 and then became one of the immediate personal followers of the Bishop
of Puy and the Count of Toulouse. He was present at the discovery of the Holy Lance,19
carried this
M Bongars has collected in his preface the notices of Pontius.
17 These dates are taken partly from the preface of the book,
partly from p. 1G3; the former was dictated by Pontius.
» Tage 103. u Page 152.
RAYMOND OF AGILE8. 143
relic in the battle against Kerboga,20 and
read the formulary at the ordeal by which Peter Bartholomew proved the identity* of this instrument of the Passion.21
There is no doubt, therefore, as to the opportunities he had of observing; and
his capacity to judge events may be gathered from his works. Above all things,
Raymond is simple and straightforward; he states, in the
strongest and coarsest manner, what he thinks. We may have some doubt as
to the correctness of his facts, but never as to the truth of the impression
they make on him. Then he is Proven?al to the backbone. He is not highly
gifted, but thoroughly enthusiastic for the success of the undertaking, and, whenever there is an opportunity, for his countrymen and their
leader. The manifestations of his character are not always of the pleasautest:
they display an extravagant belief in miracles, and a fierce
hatred of all who are opposed to him, and a vile way
of connecting divine things with the lowest motives; when to this is added a
very rude manner of expressing himself, it is obvious that in the course of his
narrative there must be many things to shock the reader. For instance, he mentions as a glorious deed of the Count of Toulouse,
that once when hard pressed by the Dalmatians, he caused the eyes of six of the
pri-
30 Page 155. 21 Tage 163.
144 * literature of the CRU8ADES.
soners to be torn out, and their noses, arms, and
legs to be cut off, in order to inspire the rest with terror.*2 At
the taking of Antioch, he says,— " Something pleasant and diverting
occurred after their long tribulations. A troop of Turkish horse, more than
three hundred in number, hard pressed by the Crusaders, were driven over a
precipice; a pleasure to see, much as we regretted the loss of the
horses."23 It
is true that in this war little regard was paid to humanity, but it
would be difficult to find a second example of such excessive virulence.94 Thus he goes on, expressing delight and rapture with the same
eagerness, and is completely carried away when a supernatural apparition manifests itself within his immediate circle. When the point of the Holy
Lance projected above the earth, he says, " Then
I, Raymond the chaplain, sprang forward to kiss it/'25 The
narratives of subsequent visions occupy about one-fourth of the whole book.26 In one word, his was a vigorous but vulgar nature, thrown by a great
impulse into an extraordinary course. The book
would soon excite disgust, were it not so guilelessly written, and did it not
so thoroughly show the personal character of the man.
» Page 139. » Page 149.
u That is to say, in trustworthy histories.
Albert has soma
additional particulars.
* Page 152.
* Nine or ten folio sides, in Bongars1 edition.
RAYMOND OF AQILE8. 145
It is obvious that his judgment is only to be trusted in certain cases:
he can be followed when once he is known. He may be depended upon as to matters
of fact, which- he narrates with the strictest accuracy. He is rich in detail,
but not in anecdote. A few cases, unimportant in themselves, may be found in
which we are forced to reject his statements; on the other hand, he gives
conclusive accounts of the most important events, and, in comparison with others, he must be looked upon as a guiding authority. On
some points his narrative is essential to a right view of events, e.g. the battle with Kilidje Arslan, before Nicaea—the siege of Antioch—and,
above all, the quarrel between Bohemund and the Count of Toulouse. He agrees perfectly
in the main points with the * Gesta Franco-rum the discrepancies are few, and
those only on special matters, quite independent of the general view of
affairs. Moreover, the two works are quite independent of each
other, although, from their similarity, it has been supposed that they had a
common origin,27 and
that Raymond had only ampli-
3? Such an assertion might appear true, when we compare some
of the longer and more connected narratives, such as the siege of
Antioch, or of Jerusalem, with the totally different account given
of the same occurrences by Albert of Aix. We must make up
our minds to leave the false and unfounded statements quite on
one side; if we attempt to connect the false with the true, it leads
us to wrong conclusions. . '
L
14G LITERATURE OF THE CRU8ADES.
fied the ' Gesta/ Each author tells the exact truth as far as he knew
it, the one as to what occurred among the Normans, the other among the Provencals. The events were neither secret nor involved,
and the similarity of the statements of the two authors is
therefore by no means wonderful. Identity of expression, even in isolated
passages, nowhere occurs; in two places, pointed out by critics, it is only
apparent: but at the end of the book, which has not come down to us in its
perfect form from Raymond himself, passages have been added
from the ' Gesta' by a foreign hand.
The question is, when and by whom the interpolations
were made. In all manuscripts which have hitherto been found, the passages in
question invariably occur. It is still more important that
Tudebod, who in this instance follows Raymond, found these words, and copied
them into his text, perhaps comparing them with the ' Gesta/28 It
is probable, indeed, that Raymond himself made the interpolations, that he felt
the omission in his own narrative, and endeavoured to fill it up
with the fragment from the ' Gesta/ This circumstance is important, as
affording the most convincing proof
* It is singular that the text in Tudebod is more like that of
the ' Gesta' than that of Raymond. However, he clearly took
the passage from Raymond, as is proved by the words that immediately follow it
RAYMOND OF A GILES.
147
of the contemporaneous composition of the ' Gesta/ even if the book did
not; contain sufficient internal evidence.
We have dwelt at some length on this
apparently trifling circumstance, for various reasons. First, in order to
establish the date of the * Gesta/ and next for those which relate to the
subject itself. We hear on all sides that it is impossible to form an exact or authentic picture of the occurrences in Constantinople from the
original authorities.29 This
is mainly owing to the confusion that prevails in Albert's narrative,30
which renders it impossible to combine the Latin authorities with the Alexiade.
But if we can succeed in extracting from the eyewitnesses
clear and unanimous statements, if we have the courage upon their authority to
pronounce a strict judgment on Albert of Aix, the apparent discrepancies
which exist in Anna Comnena's works offer no further difficulties.
To sum up our judgment on the work of Ray- « mond of Agiles, we should
say it was full of ample and trustworthy details, the value of which is
somewhat impaired by the passion and superstition
of the otherwise veracious author. As a writer, Raymond,
in spite of his violent, zealous, and supers' See Wilken's History, i. 116,117. Michaud, Hiat. i. 191.
" We have treated this subject further on.
l2
148 literature of the crusades.
stitious nature, takes a correct view of things, and with all the
vulgarity of his mind he is a true representative of his time and of his
country. He is genuine and outspoken, and no one who enters into his spirit can read his work without benefit.
III.
Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolt-
mitanorum.81
Besly, in the preface to Tudebod's ' History of Jerusalem/32
positively asserts that the ' Gesta Fran-corum/ edited by Bongars as a genuine
and authentic narrative, and frequently used as such
by former writers, was nothing more than a plagiarism of the grossest kind, the
anonymous author being entirely indebted to Tudebod for his
facts, and thinks it his duty to expose such a wholesale plagiarism. Besly grounds this assertion chiefly upon three passages,—one in which
Tudebod speaks of himself, and two wherein he mentions the death of his brothers. In these cases, Tudebod, he says, speaks as. an eye-witness, and
the anonymous author of the c
Gesta Francorum' has carefully omitted all mention of these occurrences in his narrative.33
Besly's views met with general concurrence, and have been
n In Bongars * Gesta Dei, p. 1 et
seq. n Dn Chesne, iv. 773 et eeq. « Pages 810,811, and 796,803.
GESTA FRAN CO RUM. 149
followed by all subsequent historians of the Crusades.34
I must confess that the reasons urged for this opinion appear to me
thoroughly unsatisfactory, and that there is evidence of exactly the reverse.
In the case in point, Tudebod narrates an unlucky
event which occurred at the siege of Jerusalem; "the author," he
adds, "Tudebod, a priest of Sivray, was present, and was an
eye-witness." The whole narrative, to which this statement is appended, is
omitted in the 'Gesta Francorum,' and I can conceive
nothing unlikely in the supposition that Tudebod, having got so
far in his transcription of the c
Gesta/ should have inserted in this place something he had himself witnessed.
There is nothing to disprove that he and his brothers
were present with the army, but there are many objections to looking upon his
narrative as the original source of the ' Gesta Francorum/
First of all, the anonymous author invariably speaks in the first
person; Tudebod, sometimes in the first, at other times in the third
person.
Further, the anonymous author, as we shall presently
see, was a knight. Tudebod was a priest. The
34 Since the decision, which agrees with Bongars, given in the
Hist. Litter, de la France, viii. 629, no one has had a doubt on
the matter.
150 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
first remains true to his character, whereas Tudebod introduces himself
sometimes as a warrior, at others as a priest,35
which can easily be accounted for, if we consider him only as the secondary
author.
In both works passages occur which are wanting in the other. Those
which Tudebod alone has are anecdotes, traits of individual character, etc.,
which can be easily inserted or omitted, without interfering
with the narrative. But it is not so in the other case. It clearly appears that
Tudebod, from a mistaken endeavour at compression, has omitted passages
essential to the meaning. His narrative of the conquest
of Nicaea has faults inexcusable in an eye-witness, but easily understood as the errors of a transcriber. It is impossible not to see that the ' Gesta Francorum9 is
the source from which he draws.
This leads me to the last and roost important point, which Besly passes over lightly, but which appears to me conclusive. Tudebod makes use
of Raymond's work, as well as of the ' Gesta/ He has inserted several passages
from the former, word for word, in his compilation. Had the author of the
'Gesta Francorum' followed Tudebod, it would be impossible that some
passage from Ray* Pages 782, 788. The cavalry is mentioned in contradistinction to the infantry.
Tudebod quietly copies the distinctive
GESTA FRANCORUM.
151
mond should not have slipped into his text. Precisely the one passage
which is to be found both in Raymond and in the anonymous author of
the ' Gesta Francorum/ makes the matter quite clear. Tudebod follows first the
' Gesta/ then Raymond, and then repeats the last sentences from the '
Gesta' for a second time.
But the originality of the ' Gesta Francorum9 has
been attacked from another quarter, and it has been traced to the 'Historia
Belli Sacri* in Mabillon. But in this the character of a compilation comes out still more strikingly. Besides the anonymous author of the *
Gesta/ Tudebod, Raymond, and Ro-dolph of Caen, have been extensively laid under
contribution.36
. In short, in every way, and as yet against all comers, we are
disposed to defend the originality of the ' Gesta Francorum /
and, considering the value of the work, the question is not an unimportant one.
Our knowledge of the life of the author is but slight. The work was
anonymous, even to those contemporaries who made use of his
text ;37 nowhere do we find any certain notice of the writer. We only
38 See further on.
v Robert, Baldric, and Guibert, all speak of a small anonymous document, which they wished to work up.
1 52 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
know that he quitted Amalfi with Bohemund in 1096, and remained with
him until the victory over . Kerboga. He served there among the knights,38 and
had the good fortune to take part in all the important
actions. For instance, he was one of those .who assaulted
Antioch; he likewise joined the band which in the summer of 1098 joined Robert
of Normandy and Raymond of Toulouse, in their attack upon Mara and Tripoli.39 This
is the last notice which we can find of the author.
His personal character does'not come out so strongly in connection
with the matters which he relates, as it does in Raymond of Agiles, but it shows itself sufficiently to inspire
confidence in his narrative. In the first place, the author is thoroughly
imbued with the general feeling of the Crusades. He attributes them
immediately to Divine inspiration, and in many passages calls
God himself their true leader and protector. "Almighty God, just and
merciful, who letteth not his host to perish, Bent us very present help. Thus were our enemies
overcome by the power of God and of the Holy
38 This appears from pp. 7 and 17.
* Page 25. " Ezeuntes quatnordecim ex nostris militibus,—ex
exercitu vero Raimundi comitis," etc. Tancred was also with this
army, according to Sad., c. 96; nevertheless it is not to be understood that the author accompanied it, as he does not once
name him.
6E8TA FRANCORUM. 153
-Sepulchre. We, however, wandered securely in the fields and mountains,
glorifying and praising the Lord." With such sentences he begins and ends nearly every account of each single deed and skirmish. We can but read such expressions with pleasure; indifference on
such subjects in a con* temporary would darken and disturb the picture.
Moreover, his enthusiasm is restrained within due
bounds, and is never blindly violent against worldly considerations or
polemical against hostile opinions. He shows an equal interest in human
affairs, as in Heaven and all its Saints. He relates that at Dorylaeum, when
the anxiously expected succour came, they all exclaimed,—" Let
us fight valiantly in the faith of Christ; if it be God's pleasure, we shall
all gain riches."40 And
thus throughout. His passion for war, for its own sake, is as strong as his
religious impulse. "Tarn mirabiliter," says he frequently, had they attacked the Turks, or the latter the pilgrims.
Occasionally, but very seldom, he is struck by the individual heroism of one of
the Crusaders; he then describes the act with quiet pleasure, and we may be
sure that it deserves mention. He
then speaks of the difficulties and hardships they had to encounter, in the
simplest manner, how they had nothing either to eat or td " Page 7.
154 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
drink, for days, and then satisfied their hunger with the bark of
trees, and their thirst with watar. He makes no exclamations, no reflections;
at most he adds that they endured such plagues and necessities for the sake of Christ, and the Holy Sepulchre. What would have filled others with a
high idea of the value of the sacrifices in question, viz. the holy object of
the enterprise, appears to him precisely what excludes any claim to admiration
or pity.
I cannot refrain from noticing one point especially, as marking his sentiments, and this is the terms in which he speaks
of his opponents the Turks, and the conduct of the pilgrims towards them. He
does the Turks full justice. "Who," says he, "can describe the
prudence,41 the
warlike glory, the bravery of the Turks ? I will tell the truth,
which none can gainsay. Were they but steadfast in the holy faith of Christ, it
would be impossible to find greater, stronger, or abler warriors." Now it
is a well-known fact, that this war was carried on with savage cruelty ; there was no question of quarter being given or taken; the heads
of the slain were hewn off, the dead were mutilated. All this is mentioned with
delight by the historians of the age. The author of the 'Gesta Francorum9 is a
remarkable exception to « P*ge7.
GESTA FRANCORUM.
155
the rule. He passes over such subjects on numerous
occasions; and when he does allude to them, he does it with quiet indifference,
never with exultation or unction. It is obvious that his
is the indifference of the soldier, who passes his
life amid blood and wounds, and who considers such horrors as of everyday
occurrence, not worth mentioning, and certainly not deserving praise, or matter
of edification.42 His
position in life, and his own nature give the clue to the method and
general intention of his narrative. His is the report of an eye-witness, not in
the very highest position, nor always acquainted with the leading motives
of events. So for as he can see them, he traces them clearly, and reproduces them in a correct and simple narrative. It is not by any means
a mere diary of the personal life of the author; he records with minuteness
only the most important events. He has great skill in distinguishing between
various facts, and selecting the best. He is never carried away by
what is strange, wonderful, poetical, or personally interesting, but continues the even tenor of his narrative.
Michaud complains that it is impossible to reconstruct
the plans of battles, the orders of march,
" He only mentions the murders in Antioch, because of the
offensire stench from the dead bodies; and the carnage at Jerusalem, because it took place against Tancred's orders.
156 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
and so forth, out of the unskilful writers of the twelfth century ;43 the
rest of the modern historians of those events, if we may judge from their
works, would appear to have attained the same resignation.44 With regard to the works of Albert of Aix and William
of Tyre, the reproach is perfectly well founded; but I must deny that it
applies to the 'Gesta Francorum/ which in this respect affords ample materials
for the history of the First Crusade. The ' Gesta,' in general, is rich in
details, in so far as they concern the matter in hand.
All the events which the 'Gesta! relate are duly set forth and complete in all their parts. The battles, sieges, and all that appertains
to those subjects, are easy to trace. For instance, all the measures of defence
taken by Bohemund at Dorylaeum, the position of the whole army, the
application of the several arms, are accurately set forth; then, when the
remaining forces have arrived, the formation of the line of battle, and lastly
the movement of the Bishop of Puy, which decided the battle, are explained.45 In
like manner, but still better, the siege of Antioch is brought before us: how
the Christians, in an unprotected position, and attacked on
all sides, first of all
« Hist., t. i. pp. 187, 475.
44 See, for example, in WUken, i. p. 156, the battle of Dory-toum; p. 223, the battle of Antioch; in Raumer, the siege of
Antioch, etc 41 Page 7.
GESTA FRANCORUM.
157
cleared the immediate neighbourhood, then placed themselves in
communication with the sea, at length completely surrounded the
town with a line of forts.46 Each individual encounter in the course of the siege, the victory over
Kerboga, the measures taken against Arkas and Jerusalem, are developed in the
same manner. The reader feels he is on safe ground, and soon learns to place
implicit confidence in his author.
It is not often that he permits himself to judge of persons, or to
indulge in general reflections; where it does occur, he is rough and vigorous,
but, prcemissis pramittendis, unprejudiced and correct He always says whatever is best and fittest
for a man in his position to say.47 I
only know of one instance in which he treats of matters of universal import,
and I never read it, rough and unpolished as is his style, without
pleasure. I allude to the introduction to his book:—" When the time
was fulfilled," says he, " which Christ showed to his apostles,
speaking daily and especially in the Gospels, Whosoever will follow me, let him
deny himself, and take up his cross: then a great
movement took place throughout France: That whoso-
48 Page 9 et seq.
47 This may be said also of the few expressions concerning
Alexius and the Greeks. They are crude, but by no means false.
158 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
ever wished to follow the Lord with his whole heart, and to carry his
cross after him in faith, he should not delay quickly to begin and walk in the
way of the Lord. And straightway the Pope, with his archbishops, bishops,
priests, and abbots, crossed the Alps, and began to teach wisely and
to preach, and spake thus: Whosoever will save his soul alive, let him not
hesitate to walk in the way of the Lord. Whosoever lacketh money, he will, by
God's grace, be plentifully provided therewith. And when these words were bruited abroad, the Franks who heard them sewed red crosses on
their shoulders and said that they would follow with one accord the footsteps
of Christ, who had loosed them from the bonds of hell," etc.
If we consider that the author had no intention of
giving a connected narrative of the Crusades, but solely meant to describe what
he himself saw, this opening leaves little to be desired. Short as it is, it
places us in the clearest and truest manner, in the midst of the beginning of
the enterprise. It gives the source from which it
originated—the religious impulse of the West; it names the individual, Urban II., who gave expression and life to this impulse ; it tells the manner in which the army was collected and
organized by the personal enthusiasm of the individuals. The anecdote of Peter the
GESTA FRANCORUM.
150
Hermit is happily suppressed. Christ, the Pope, the whole of Western
Europe, are the worthy actors in this great enterprise.
I believe that what I have said justifies my
as* sertion that we have here to do with the most important
authority for a true history of the First Crusade. A character like that of the
author of the 'Gesta Francorum' is peculiarly fitted to give a true picture of
great events. Devoid of personal pre* tensions, strong in will;
without any adventitious interests, but inspired with a great purpose and full
of religious enthusiasm, which, however, does not preclude him from feeling an
interest in human affairs, he shows a meritorious
industry in making use of the rich materials at hand to
give a picture of the important events in which he himself had been an actor.
It is likewise interesting to find in him the purest expression of national
character. He exemplifies the Norman type, in that mixture of the temporal and ecclesiastical, in the freedom
with which he handles all subjects, keeping every part of his picture in
subordination to the whole. In Raymond of Agiles, we saw the Provencal, full of
zeal, forgetting the future and the past in the immediate present, and pressing forward step by step in impetuous passion. In small things there is the same antagonism, upon which the most
important events of the Cru
160 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
sades depend, that antagonism which from the very first disagreement
about Antioch separated Bohemund and Raymond of Toulouse more
and more, until the activity of the one was extinguished in the chains of
Danischmend, and that of the other in the deserts of Phrygia.48 Even
now both these chiefs speak to us in their own tongues,
each one of his own nature, of his deeds, and of their mutual contention. By this means, if we understand their words rightly, scarce
any important point can remain obscure to us.
1. Tudebod.
I have already mentioned Tudebod, the
priest of Sivray. We know but little of his life. Besly asserts that he was
with the army of Poitou, commanded first by Hugo of Lusignan, and then by
Gaston of Beam. But there is no positive proof of this.49 Besly was led to this conclusion because Hugo was
then Lord of Sivray.60 The
book copies the ' Gesta Francorum/ nearly word for word; many of the
48 Their effectual action was then at an end, at least as far as
concerns the East.
49 Although the Hist. Litt. de la France, i. c, cites Tudebod
himself, pp. 173 and 809 in support of it.
*° If we aUowed this to hold good, it would afford an additional argument in favour of the originality of the 'Gesta.'
Why should a native of Aquitaine, devote himself so exclusively
to the history of the Normans P
GUIBERT, ABBOT OF NOGBNT. 161
interpolations are mere episodes, and of little im# portance. He gives
some details concerning the capture of Jerusalem, which may serve partly as an
amplification, partly as a rectification of the 'Gesta/
2. Guibert, Abbot of Nogent.
Guibert was born in the year 1053, at Beauvai^ of noble
parents.51 His
youth was passed in those times when the Roman Church began to bring the world
under its dominion. Many circumstances „ concurred to subject Guibert
altogether to these ecclesiastical influences, his mother was enthusiastically pious, and lived only in
the mortification of the outward senses, and in the
cultivation of the inward and spiritual perceptions. Before his birth his
parents had vowed to devote their son to the service of the Church,62 and
long before manhood he assumed the monk's cowl at Flavigny.63 As
he grew up, the lusts of the world awoke within him: he became a poet and
learned music; he attempted imitations of Ovid and of Virgil's Bucolics. But his teacher was
61 De VitA sua, i. 3.14. Cf. Bongars in prof, and Hist. Litt. x. p. 439.
« Vita, i. 4.
43 Mabillon, Ann. i. 62, n. 65, gives the year 1064. I see no positive testimony for the exact date; the assumption of the cowl
by no means took place later.
M
102 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
warned in a vision, and the lad himself saw how he sinned against the
rules of his Order. In this frame of mind he met with Anselm, Abbot of Bee,
afterwards primate of the English Church, whose powerful influence at once
directed him into the strict path of the Church. Gifted as Guibert
Cas, he soon attained fame by his eloquence and arning, and at an early
age became abbot of No-gent on the Seine* He remained there, respected by a
large circle, and distinguished in politics and literature,55
until his death, in 1124.56
The results of such a career are visible throughout his writings; he was not without abilities, and for the times in
which he lived, he was well read. The advantages of his birth and of his
ecclesiastical dignity were of great service to him in writing a history of the Crusades. His
acquaintances and connections extended over all France ;57 he
was indebted for many valuable hints to Count Robert M Vita, i. 17,19.
M The third book of his autobiography gives an account of his outward life; the Hist. Litt. i. c, gives his writings. He himself
speaks frequently enough of their effect.
H Mabillon, Ann. L 74, n. 71.
57 But not further. His notices on the French nobility, pp.
486-501. are very useful, as weU as his statements as to the consequences of the Council of Clermont, and on the Crusades especially, pp. 481, 508, 552. But Godfrey and Bohemund are out
of his circle. He adduces the most fabulous accounts of both,
pp. 485-488.
GUIBERT, ABBOT OF NOG ENT. 163
of Flanders ;58
Archbishop Manasses of Rheims allowed him to consult the letters of
Anselm of Ripemont60 and
he was himself present at the Council of Clermont. As a man of learning he
affects a cultivated style and artistic form, but he only selected the Crusades as his subject, in order to make the ' Gesta Francorum/
in his paraphrase, more agreeable to cultivated
readers. It is true that he has succeeded very ill: the simple tone of bis
original is overwhelmed by his inflated and pompous style; he appears, conscious of his own high position, to disregard the opinion
of others; and frequently intimates that those who do not approve bis manner of writing may seek some other. Valuable as his work
is, in his literary character, full of pedantry and conceit,
he is most offensive.80 The dignified servant of the Church, the man with whom everything has
succeeded, the ecclesiastic who belongs to a ruling party, is too conscious of
a proud position. He feels all his power when he attacks Fulcher of Chartres, as to his doubts
M Ho was his personal friend; pp. 521,535,548. The frequently
noticed letter of the Emperor Alexius to Robert appears to me to be thoroughly trustworthy, p. 474.
" Pages 543,553-4. We have before mentioned an original letter which has come down to us (in the third volume of D'Achery's
Spicilegium, edit. 2).
* Compare his preface and the prooemium of almost all the
separate books of his history.
M 2
164 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
.with respect to the Holy Lance, and reproaches him with credulity and
superstition as to other miracles.61 It
was not in vain that Guibert had studied the science of demonology, that he had
himself seen visions, and had everywhere found the doctrine of apparitions and wonders flourishing.62 Nor
was it either doubt or enthusiasm that stirred Guibert
to.anger against Fulcher. The pride of superior learning, the consciousness of
belonging to a dominant orthodox party, made him look
down with contempt on his rival.6^
The close of his work is remarkable;64 hard
as he had worked at the historical form of his book, he could not master his
mass of learning. He had come to the end of the ' Gesta Francorum/ which was
his guide, and he still had on hand a variety of
unused materials, too good to be lost to posterity.
« Page 652.
* De Vit& suA, i. i. c. 20 et
seq., i. ii. in extenso. We can conceive nothing, however extravagant, that is not here stated as true and defended as reasonable. We see in this instance how little we can trust the judgments of modern authors, who sometimes call him the most credulous, and sometimes praise him as the most philosophical of all the authors of that time. Compare, for example, Gibbon, pp. 1069,1072 (London edition, 1836), and Michaud, Bibl. i. 124.
• What Neander quotes of St. Bernard, p. 309, from his work 1 De Pignoribus Sanctorum,' appears to me to suit very well the
picture here given. It is the same belief in prodigies, reduced to a system; the unmistakable influence of Anselm of Canterbury.
M From p. 539.
GUIBERT, ABBOT OP NOGENT. 165
He determined to use them at all events, and strung fragment upon
fragment, digression upon digression, important and useless matter in utter confusion, until his store of knowledge was exhausted. These stories
extend as late as the middle of the reign of Baldwin I., and it is easy to
conceive how they vary in value and credibility; the most ordinary and the most
unexpected matters are mixed together; occasionally
we find individual notices on points but little known, which throw new light on
familiar subjects. Such are the details as to the government of Robert of
Normandy in Laodicea, which Lap* penberg has made use of,65 and
which are important as correcting a widely spread
statement by Albert of Aix,66 and
the account of the Crusade of the year V0\l.67 Of
more special subjects we would also mention the death of Anselm of Ripemont and
the end of Baldwin of Hennegau; the former serves to supply deficiencies in the narratives of Raymond and Radulph,68 the
latter is remarkable for its accurate agreement with the local
history of Giselbert of Bergen.69
The book was begun in the year 1108 or 1109, and certainly not finished
till 1110. Guibert
says
** Page 554, Lappenberg's Geschichte von England, ii. p. 224.
« Albert, p. 290. * Ibid., p. 527.
m Raymond, p. 164; Ead. c. 106.
• In Bonqnet, rol. xiii. of the Recueil.
166 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
that he is writing two years after the death of Manasses, Archbishop of
Rheiins,70 which occurred on the 17th September, 1106,71 and
in another place he mentions the death of Bobeinond,72
which is known to have taken place in the year 1110.
3. Baldric, Archbishop of Dol.
Baldric was born at Meun, near Orleans.73 He
was first a monk, and then became Abbot of Bour-gueil in 1079, and in 1107 was
appointed Archbishop of Dol in Brittany. His personal
character was a complete contrast to that of his contemporary Guibert. I dwell with the greater pleasure upon it, as it forms an
agreeable relief to that of Guibert, and also because Baldric represents a more
common though, at that time, an oppressed type.
The ascetic zeal which pervaded the hierarchy of the eleventh century, was as hateful to the nature of Baldric as it was congenial
to the Abbot of No-gent. Baldric saw no impediment to a Christian life in
secular learning and art; the mortification of the senses was not to his mind;
sullen looks and strict fasts—in short, the whole pomp and ceremony
of holy works—appeared to him not sufficient to
70 Page 537. 71 Bonquet, xiii. p. 407.
» Page 483.
71 Baldric, Carolina apud Duchesne, vol. ii. p. 268.
BALDRIC, ARCHBI8H0P OF DOL. 167
fill up human life. He enjoyed the quiet of his cloister, the smiling
garden, the clear running stream, the budding groves, while in his own room
there were books, manuscripts, and all the appliances
of learning. " This is the spot/' writes he to a friend, "in which peace can be found."74 There he wrote his verses; nothing remarkable, but unpretending, and a
labour of love.74
There also be applied himself to severer studies, and interchanged letters with friends of similar tastes. They carefully
discussed their works, among others the History of
the Crusades.76 They
allowed the ecclesiastical contests to be settled elsewhere; it concerned them
but little that a new hierarchy had conquered and remodelled the world; not
that they neglected their duties,77 but their true life lay in their books, in their gardens, and in their
meadows. They were not always able to defend their peaceful existence from the
incursion of a hostile element; their ideas were peculiar and too much opposed
to
74 Baldric, p. 269.
'* He re-wrote an epitaph of aix lines on William I. of England three times.
76 His correspondence with Peter, Abbot of Maillezais, is given
by Bongars, before the History of the Crusades.
77 He jealously maintained his metropolitan rights against the
claims of Tours, and obtained the pallium from Paschal II. AU
the documents concerning the quarrel are in Martene,' Thesaurus/ iii. 857 et seq.
163 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
the dominant party. Baldric writes to the Bishop of Ostia: " My
vessel sails only by stealth, for pirates of all sorts swarm around me; they
hem me in on every side, gnashing with their teeth because I do not quit my
books, because I do not go about with eyes cast on the ground. Thus am I
flagging in my work. May your hand
protect me."78
As bishop, he remained true to himself and to his nature. He was very
religious, but gentle and mild. It is true -this did not always succeed in his
diocese, with his fierce Bretons.79 He
was not fit to hold ecclesiastical power. He quitted Brittany, and sought a
more peaceful asylum at Bee, Fecamp, and finally in England.86 Men
like him would never have gained honours and triumphs for the hierarchy; but it
is a pleasure to meet with a nature so pure, so
cheerful, and so gentle, in times so full of energy, war, and austerity.81
78 Carmina, p. 275. 79 Orderio Vitalis, p. 718.
80 The Hist. Litt. xi. 96 et seq., gives more particulars.
81 As may be conceived, the judgment of the Benedictines on
him is different. Mabillon, in the Annals, accuses him of world-Hness and lukewarmness. In the main he supports this opinion
by those passages of Baldric's poems, and he quotes a letter
of Ivo of Chartres, wherein he is reported to have said that Baldric had tried every method of bribery in order to become Bishop
of Orleans; but it is only stated in this letter (No. 66. 5, in Duchesne), that Baldric's rival was preferred " quia animadversi
sunt plures et pleniores sacculi nummorum latere in apothecia
amicorum istius, quam apud abbatem."
BALDRIC, ARCHBISHOP OF DOL. 169
His history of the Crusades breathes the same spirit. He is exact and
trustworthy in his use of the ' Gesta/ he has not made many additions to its contents, but the views and opinions which he expresses are in keeping
with his character. He does not withhold praise, even from the Turks ;M he
omits the word " faithless/' as applied to the Emperor
Alexius, which constantly occurs in the'Gesta/83 He endeavours to excuse Count Stephen of Blois, who is generally styled impudens et abomina-bilis, on the score of the general weakness of human nature.84 The
additions he makes are mostly taken from oral testimony, and generally well
selected.85 Of course it is only in few instances that he
can be called an eye-witness; he undoubtedly is so where he mentions the effect
caused by the beginning of the Crusades in France.
Baldric died before 1130, as his death was known to Pope Honorius II.
His work on the Crusades seems to have been widely
known. Or-dericus Vitahs made use of it, and William of Tyre in many instances
took it as the groundwork of his own history.
" Premium. ■ Pages 92,
93.
* Page 118.
* Praises of the chastity of the
Crusaders, p. 96: rather a doubtful statement. Page 137 gives a good account of the Battle of
Ascalon.
170 literature of the CRUSADE8.
4. The History of the Holy War.
The anonymous book bearing this title is a compilation
from the • Gesta/ from Tudebod, Radulph, and Raymond. All these works have
evidently been used, as we find passages taken from each which are wanting in
all the rest.86 But
there are numerous original additions, from which we may gather some idea of
the author. These mostly have reference to Bohemund
and his affairs, so that we may fairly surmise that the author was a Norman,
and apparently one of humble origin.87 After the war he most likely lived in Antioch, as while he speaks in
indistinct terms of the election of the King of Jerusalem, he gives original accounts of Tancred's rule, from 1100 to 1103, and ends
his work with a short review of Bohemund's life and adventures.88 This
gives the measure of his trustworthiness.
His narrative is lively, and
* The narrative about Nicaea is
from the 'Gesta/ and is not to be found in Tudebod.
Chapter 17 is not in the ' Gesta/ but is in Tudebod (Tud. p. 781). Chapter 55
(p. 792), c. 69, 70 (p. 789), c. 5,16,17, init. 24, 30,
are from Kaymond, pp. 140-142. The chapters 107,109,129,131,132,135, and 136,
are out of Radulph, c. 106,110.
* Such are c. 37,45,66,67,83,90,93.
The 'Gesta/ p. 5, shows that the Count of RoussUlon, whose death is mentioned
in chapter 45, was in Raymond's army. Most of these statements can also be
confirmed by Raymond and Radulph.
88 Chapters 130, 138, 139.
FULCO, GILO, AND THE MONK ROBERT. 171
very like that of the ' Gesta.' It was written later than that work;
probably about the year 1181, as the death of Bohemond is mentioned.
Mabiilon has given a complete edition of this work in the second volume
of his ' Museum Itali-cum/89
5. Henry of Huntingdon.
According to a frequent custom of his times, Henry of Huntingdon has
inserted a history of the Crusades in his larger work. But it is without importance, and was most probably derived entirely from the
' Gesta/ I should have scarcely noticed it here, were it not for allusions to
the work in Lappenberg's History of England.
He has not made much use of it.90
6. Fulco, Gilo, and the Monk 'Robert.
I mention these authors together, as Gilo cannot
well be separated from Fulco, whose conti-nuator he is. But Gilo, although in
the first part of his narrative he is as independent of the ' Gesta' as Fulco,
still belongs to the same category, as the last
89 Muratori, Scr. Rer. Ital. t. iv. It is said in the notes to the
passage here referred to, that this chapter was taken from a
special manuscript in Monte Cassin. Pertz reports that this
manuscript only contains that edited by Mabiilon (Archiv, v.
157); their identity is easily verified by comparing the two.
90 History of England, ii. 221.
172 • LITERATURE OP THE CRUSADES.
four books of his work are taken word for word from the ' Gesta/ and
lastly, it is only in connection with the two others that we can give our
judgment on Robert the Monk.
- We know n6thing more than his book tells us as to who Fulco was,
where and when he lived, and whence he gained his
information. The title of his work, 'The History of the Crusades of Our Times/
proves that he lived during the period of the Crusades. The concluding sentence
of his poem: " Caetera describit Gilo,"91
shows that he was a contemporary
and probably wrote from the same place as Gilo, and this is the utmost that we
can learn of him.
Fulco's work treats of the first events of the Crusades until the siege of Nicaea; it is in three books, and in
hexameters. His verses are heavy and overladen
with quotations and illustrations ; he lays no claim to poetical skill, and the
only question is whether his work is worth examining
historically: but it is easy to prove the contrary; it contains, with scarcely
an exception, nothing but what is perfectly well known, utterly
confused, and altogether useless.
Instead of the usual examination, I will briefly review his narrative
of Godfrey's adventures in the
91 The Hist. Litt. zii. 84, is wrong also when it maintains
that Fulco has composed his book as a continuation of the work
of Gilo.
FULCO, GILO, AND THE MONK ROBERT. 173
Greek Empire; this will be sufficient, without entering into any elaborate comparison with original authorities, to give us
the measure of his work. Godfrey, he says,9*
while in Thrace, learnt the approach of the other armies, and determined to
wait for them at Constantinople. Alexius alarmed and angry,
prepared to drive the Duke away by force of arms. In the first place he
refused to supply him with provisions ; whereupon Godfrey plundered the land,
seized upon two thousand swine, which were collected for the Imperial kitchen,
and eventually completely routed the Imperial troops. The
latter, during their retreat, fell in with a body of Lorrai-ners, who, posted
in Adrianople, had not been aware of the outbreak of hostilities, persuaded
them to accompany them to Constantinople, and easily made them prisoners. In order to release his companions-in-arms, Godfrey agreed to the Emperor's terms and crossed over into Asia.
All these occurrences are purely imaginary. A certain interest which
they possess, lies entirely apart from their representing any historical facts. Godfrey did not yield to the Emperor, as has generally been
represented, from any motive of princely generosity, nor out of regard to the
Christianity of Alexius, nor yet from eagerness to prose:
« Page 896.
174 LITERATURE OP THE CRUSADES.
cute the war against the Saracens; he was forced, much against his
will, by the superiority of the Greek arms, to do homage to the Emperor. We see
that this general result lies at the root of Fulco's narrative ; the facts are
strangely misrepresented and added to; intense hatred to
the Greeks is quite obvious; and the author's grand object is not only to save
the personal honour of the Duke, but to glorify him even in his defeat. He can
point to no written authority for his statements; it is not probable that he possessed any other sources
of information than his continuator Gilo, and it
appears most likely that the latter trusted to oral tradition.
Gilo,93 who
came from Toucy, in the province of Auxerre, lived for a time at Paris, then
entered the monastery of Clugny, and was made Bishop of Frascati, and Cardinal
by Calixtus II.94 He
was subsequently employed on important missions;96 lastly he was sent in 1134 into Aquitaine, as legate from
the rival Pope, Anaclete, which naturally exposed
him to the most violent abuse from the opposite
side.96 When he gave in his adhesion to the
M The Hist. Litt. xii. 81, gives a review of his life and works.
w Martene, Prasf. ad Ekkeh. (CoU. Ampl. v. 508).
w 1127, to Palestine.
William of Tyre, p. 827, caJls him
iEgidius.
96 Bibl. Cluniac. pp. 720, 767, contain violent letters of the
Abbot, Peter of Clugny, to him. In the notes to this passage,
p. 127, Andre Duchesne has given a biography of Gilo.
FULOO, GILO, AND THE MONK ROBERT. 175
victorious Pope, Innocent, is unknown; and we are not informed of the
date of his death.
When he wrote his history of the Crusades, he was still living in
Paris. The work is in hexameters, and consists of
seven books; it was written after the year 1118, as the author speaks of
Baldwin I. as having formerly reigned at Jerusalem. The three last books follow the ' Gesta9 word
for word, with the exception of three brief original
additions.97 The four first books are more independent, and differ in numerous
points from the ' Gesta/ but afford few emendations on it. For example, let us
compare the beginning of Gilo's narrative, namely, the account of the
siege of Nicaea, with that given by eye-witnesses.98 The
town was surrounded, and the whole army of the Crusaders united before the
walls, from the very beginning. But we know from Raymond, who was himself
present, that the Provencals only arrived there on the
fifteenth day of the siege. We learn from Fulcher, who
was with Robert of Normandy, that the northern French, with the exception of
Hugo, reached the camp several weeks after the Provencals. At the very be-
97 Page 251: a number of new pilgrims
flocked together to Antioch. Page 261: the mention of
Rambaud at the storming of Jerusalem (compare likewise
Rad. c. 119). Page 263: Guichu, the lion-slayer, was the second to scale the
walls of Jerusalem. 16 Gilo, p. 211.
176 .
LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES,
ginning of the siege, says Gilo, the pilgrims saw that it was essential
to cut off the water communication from the besieged; for this reason a fleet
was built, which compelled the besieged to offer to surrender. Such an offer
was certainly made, not to the Crusaders,
but to the Emperor Alexius, and took place before the pilgrims thought of
occupying the water of the lake.99 Gilo
has it that the attempt made by the Sultan to succour the town followed upon
this. On its failure, the inhabitants lost all heart, and gave up the town to
the Greek Emperor. It is however well known that this skirmish occurred quite at the beginning of the siege, on the same day on
which, Count Raymond reached the Christian camp, and that Nicaea offered a
resistance that lasted four weeks longer. We see the gross errors in facts
and dates contained in this narrative: how ill such a beginning promises for the rest of the narrative ! And indeed in the course of the work
there is little to induce us .to alter
09 The manuscript from which Duchesne had the work printed,
contains an interpolation which is not without interest for
the dissemination of these statements. The negotiations are
broken off, war is renewed; at night the Christians capture
a messenger, who was to announce the approach of the Sultan,
and so on, as we may read the story in Albert of Ak; only it is written in hexameters instead of in prose. It is an addition
entirely void of sense, as Raymond's absence is noticed, and the
Count is at the same time named as one of the attacking party.
FULCO, GILO, AND THE MONK ROBERT. 177
our judgment. Wherever the author does give more accurate accounts,
such for instance as that of the occurrences before Antioch, and elsewhere, his
narrative, if not exactly a copy of the • Gesta/ follows that authority
very closely.100
That Gilo drew largely from oral tradition is obvious in itself, but still more so when we consider the work of the
monk Robert. The connection between Gilo and Robert is evident on
the slightest comparison; but, as far as I know, Michaud was the first to point
this out. , He does not hesitate to consider
Robert's narrative as the source whence Gilo took his history.102 According to Michaud, Robert inserted into the text of the ' Gesta/
which was his original, a number of events which he himself witnessed. These
were again borrowed by Gilo, who made fresh
additions to them, of very little value. But if we take any subject from these
three authors, for instance, the siege of Nicaea, we shall perceive that Gilo
and the f
Gesta' give two completely different versions; and that
Robert has attempted to combine the two with a very bad result.103 We can follow Robert step by step in this process, and can see how the
100 Compare the single combats before Antioch.
IW See his Bibliotheque des Croisades, article Gilo.
m Gesta, p. 6. Gilo, p. 218.
Rob. p. 39.
N
178
LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
attempt to combine two such different accounts involves him in hopeless
contradictions, and how he tries to reconcile them.
If we cut out the information derived from the ' Gesta Francorum, and
from Gilo, there remains but a small amount of original matter belonging to
Robert the Monk, at the very most about five passages,
and those not very credible ;[1] we thus see that the position of this writer,
who has been placed on an equality with the author of the ' Gesta/ and with
Raymond of Agiles, and far above the other copiers of those two eye-witnesses,
is a very unimportant one.
According to common report, the monk Robert
became abbot of the convent of St. Remy, at llheims; here he was subjected to
severe censure by the abbot Bernard of Marmoutiers, who was his superior. This
resulted in his deposition, by the Archbishop Manasses of Rheims. Robert appealed
m The history of a Provencal apostate who joined Kerboga,
which is to be found with some variations in other authors.
Page 66: countless numbers of heavenly warriors fight with the
Crusaders against Kerboga. Page 70: the remark that Raymond
was quite in the right in the quarrel with Antioch; and further,
the account of the last consultation of the princes in Kafertah.
Page 73: the notice that Anselm of Ripemont had been a zealous
protector of the church at Anchin, which is confirmed by Sigeb.
Gemblac, a.d. 1099. Lastly, page 75: the totally unfounded assertion that Baldwin had been with the forces before Jerusalem.
fulco, gilo, and the monk robert. 179
to Pope Urban II., received a favourable judgment in Rome in the year
1097, went to the Crusades, and was present at the capture of Jerusalem. Spite
however of the Papal judgment, he could never obtain a restoration to his
former dignity; but he was made instead the prior of Senuc, where he
wrote his history of the Crusades. He lost the latter preferment by a judgment of Pope Calixtus II. and died in 1122. For all
these circumstances we have contemporary authority. There are the
acts of the Council of Rheims105 which deposed him, letters from himself, from two archbishops
concerning him,106 the acts of the Council of Poitiers which acquitted him; but for his
participation in the Crusades, and the most important of all, the composition
of his history, we can discover nothing of the 6ort. In
all those documents there is no mention of these facts, and no other writer
alludes to them. The most ancient author who mentions his pilgrimage is, I
believe, Blondus, in his 'Decades';107 Marlot, in his * Metropolis Remensis/ is the first to speak
101 In Mansi, in the supplement to 1097, as weU as in Marlot,
in a passage we shall give.
106 His letter to the Bishop of Arras in Baluze, MisceU., iv.
the Chron. Adag. p. 998. A letter of Baldric of Dol, in Duchesne, iv. 276.
107 Decad. ii. i. 4.
Bongars cites him in his preface.
n 2
180 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADE8.
of him as an author "in cella Senucensi;"108 but, until proof is afforded for both these assertions, I see no
certainty, either of the identity of the abbot of St Remy with the author of
the history by the monk Robert, nor of the pilgrimage of the one or the other
to the Holy Land, whether they be one, or two different persons. If we
examine the writings before us with reference to these
points, the evidence is doubtful rather than affirmative. The author calls
himself only a monk, not an abbot: he speaks of St. Remy, and not of Senuc, as
the spot where he wrote his work.109 But the work was written after 1118,110 when the abbot Robert had long lived at Senuc. There is only one
passage which leads one to suppose the author ever to have been in Jerusalem,
and that by no means proves his participation in
the Crusades.111
Be this as it may, the question is unimportant, considering the small
value which we attach to his
108 Tom. ii. 221. Mabiilon, Ann. iv. 347, quotes from it,
the Gallia Christ. Nova, ix. 230. The Hist. Litt. de la France
follows him (x. 323); also Oudin, de Script. Eccles. ii. 862, "quotes Marlot, and Joannis follows him in his statement. From
the Hist. Iitt. it has passed into all modern histories. Trithem
and Fabricius give no further particulars.
m In pr»f. apol. 110 As Gilo is used.
111 He says, p. 78,—" A quodam Turco qui hoc" (on the battle
near Ascalon) " postea in Jerusalem retulit habuimus." I believe
that he, like Ekkehard, was at Jerusalem at some later period.
fulcher of CHARTRE8.
181
work, which is a compilation without any peculiar interest, even
supposing it to have been composed in the camp of the Crusaders.1ia
IV. Fulcher of Chartres.
The ' Gesta Peregrinantium Francorum/ by Fulcher
of Chartres, may be divided, according to its method
and its value, into several parts. A brief account of the author's life will
furnish the best clue to a criticism of his work.
Fulcher, a chaplain from Chartres, took the cross in the year 1095, and
joined the army of Count Robert of Normandy and Stephen
of Blois, with which he marched through Apulia and Greece, and reached the camp
before Nicaea in June, 1097. He remained with the bulk of the crusading army
until its arrival in Meerasch, and went thence to Edessa with Count Baldwin,
who then commenced his enterprise
against that town.113 Up to this point his information is good, and frequently most
important; both on particular facts and on the general aspect^ of affairs. I
allude more particularly to his account of the journey through Italy and Greece.114 He here
m His account of the Council of
Clermont is however in a better style: here he
speaks as an eye-witness. 114 Pages Site, 389, 400, in Bongars. 114 Pages 384, 385.
LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
shows the incorrectness of the impression that the armies had met
together in the west of Europe, and that great masses of them had marched
towards the East in regularly organized bodies. " We wandered," says Fulcher, " as we could, in April, May,. June,
until October, wherever we could obtain supplies/' Adhemar had appointed Constantinople as the general rendezvous.114 Moreover Fulcher's narrative of the march from Dorylaeum to Eikle is
important, and very attractive, from the great descriptive
powers of the writer. His account of the occurrences in Edessa is
conclusive, as he was the only eye-witness.115 It agrees in the main with that of Matthew Eretz of Edessa, who is the
next best authority; whereas both Albert of Aix and Guibert have followed quite
different reports.116
Unfortunately Fulcher breaks off here, and turns his attention to the
main body of the crusadings army, which then seemed the point of most interest.
It is scarce credible that a contemporary, living at the distance of only a few
days' journey, should receive
such absurdly false accounts. What reliance can be placed on these traditions,
when even in a
114 Chron. Podiense, in the Hist Gen. de Languedoc, ii. 8. m Fulcher, pp. 383, 389.
1M Fulcher, p. 389; Matthew Erets, in the Notices, etc., de la
Bibho. da Roi, ix.; Alb. p. 222 et seq.; Guibert, 496.
FULCHER OF CHARTRE8.
183
few score years they circulated in the distant West in such wild and
uncertain forms ? The chronological sequence of events is lost;
the accuracy of the narrative disappears, and a blind enthusiasm finds vent in
miraculous stories. Even here however some few passages are important: such as
the account of Tancred's conquest of Bethlehem, which checks a different report given by Albert of Aix; Tancred's plundering of the
Temple, and the subsequent negotiations, which are
supported by the testimony of Radulph against Albert.117
Fulcher remained (in Jerusalem,1
after a short absence, until the death of Godfrey of Bouillon (at Edessa. | He then accompanied Baldwin I. to Palestine, and remained there with the King in the same capacity as he
had previously been with the Count.118 From this time his work is most important. Here, where all other
eye-witnesses fail, his account is trustworthy, and
often full. Let us attempt from this point to determine its general character.
It is obvious, in the first place, that the author, by no means
intended to write a history: the work is in reality a diary of his own life, with all the circumstances as they happened; in
which state Guibert saw it in the year 1108 or 1110, in
the West;
w Alb. p. 281; Rad. c. 136 et
seq. m Pages 400, 403.
184 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
though it does in fact come down to 1127. He records what
personally concerns himself, and devotes to it more or less space,
according to his own individual taste. I will select the first example that
occurs to me (to which many might be added); the passage in which he relates
Baldwin's taking. possession of Jerusalem. He begins with a vivid description
of the march from Edessa: "Collegit exercitulum suura,"—two hundred
knights and seven hundred infantry; they go from city to city; the Prince of
Tripolis sends bread, wine, wild honey, and mutton to their tents; at the
same time he tells them of an ambush prepared for them near Berytus. This they
found terribly confirmed, for the narrow and wild passes were occupied by the
Saracens. He then describes the battle, and how the Christians were at first unsuccessful. " We were ill at ease," says he;
" we affected courage, but we feared death. I wished myself home again at
Chartres or Orleans." Luckily, however, they fought their way through, and
Fulcher devotes many pages to a description of the
happy manner in which they brought this adventure to a close. They subsequently
reached Kaiphas, which then belonged to Tancred, who, as is well
known, was one of the leaders of the opposition against Baldwin's
succession. Fulcher enters into no explanation of
FULCHER OF CHARTRES.
185
the relations between the two princes. He only says shortly: " We
did not enter Kaiphas, because Tancred was then at enmity with us; but,"
he continues, " Tancred being then absent, his people sold us bread and wine outside the walls, for they considered us as brothers, and were anxious to see us." And a little
further on: " As we approached Jerusalem, the clergy and the laity
came forth to meet the King in solemn procession; likewise came the Greeks and the Syrians, with crosses and candles, who received him with joy
and honour and loud shouts, and escorted him to the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre." After this the narrative again becomes very meagre. "The
Patriarch Dagobert was not present; he had been
slandered to Baldwin, and bore him a grudge; wherefore he sat apart on Mount
Sion until his malice was forgiven." Not one word explaining the cause and
purport of this quarrel. No one could suppose that the whole existence of the
Christian kingdom in the East was at that moment at
stake; nor does he bestow more attention upon the King and his peculiar
talent for government. He proceeds:—" We remained
six days in Jerusalem, rested ourselves, and the King made his first
arrangements; then we started again." Then follows a detailed
and most lively journal of his travels through the whole southern portion of
1S6 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADE8.
the kingdom. Later we find a short narrative of the Second Crusade. He
was in 1102 with the King during an expedition against Ascalon in Joppa.
"There/' he says, "he met several knights who were waiting for a
favourable wind, in order to return as speedily as possible to France. They had lost their horses the year before,
together with all their baggage, during a march through Rumania."1™
Fulcher s work has been much used, both by his contemporaries and by subsequent
writers. We have already mentioned that Guibert knew the book. Spite of
his obligations to Fulcher, Guibert speaks contemptuously of him, without
however bringing any specific charge against him. Bartholf de Nangiejo was more
grateful: he compiled the ' Gesta Expugnantium Hierusalem/ distinctly acknowledging his authority.120 Many passages are taken from the 9
Gesta Francorum/ not exactly word for word, but they betray their origin.
Others,, again, are evidently fabulous tales, having no pretence to authenticity. The work is in no way important.121
110 There are many similar accounts of
other things that happened, of the products of the
country, foreign customs, etc.; page 401, on the water of the Dead Sea; page
407, on the church, music in Jerusalem, etc.
180 In Bongars, p. 561. The name is in
Barth. p. 500.
W1 It reaches from 1095 to 1106.
FULCHER OF CHARTRES.
1S7
We must also here only mention the ' Secunda Pars Historise Hierusalem/
by Liziard, of Tours, embracing the years 1100-1124 ;122 its contents are of no value.
The work of William of Malmesbury is mixed up much more with foreign
and even fabulous matter.1-3 It
is instructive only as regards the family of Godfrey of Bouillon, and the early
and subsequent career of Robert of Normandy.124 The rest of his book, where he ventures to quit Fulcher, does
not belong to an historical account of the Crusades.
The ecclesiastical history of Ordericus Vitalis is beyond measure more
important. He compiled the history of the Crusades partly out of Fulcher,
partly out of Baldric; but added a number of curious details, which are not all equally authentic, but are
nevertheless interesting and important.125 This part of his work, and indeed the whole of it, contains a vast mass
of local information. The several facts are characteristic and life-like; and, when taken as a whole, are of the greatest
value towards
122 In Bongars, p. 594.
123 In his • Gesta Regum Angliae,' p.
131 et seq., in
Savile. 134 Page
142, 151, and in other places.
m Lappenberg, in his History of
England, ii. 337, gives the most instructive account of
his work. In comparison with this the earlier statements in the Hist. Litt. de
la France, are very unimportant.
188 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
obtaining a knowledge of the state of things at that time. He gives the most valuable information concerning Peter the Hermit,126 Otho of Bayeux, and his death,127 and many noblemen of Normandy and of the north of France.128 No one shows more completely what view the people who
lived in those times, took of the whole Crusade.129 Capefigue says of him,180 that he was " le conteur d'anecdotes; il regne dans toutes ses
pages un esprit romanesque, qui se ressent deja des trouveres et de la
poesie."
This applies only to some part of his book:
the reports which came to him from the East bore that impress. They tell of
pagan princesses who are unable to withstand the charms and merits of the
celebrated Christian heroes :131 the pilgrims give battle not only to Turks and Saracens, but to
hosts of lions and tigers :132 the Lord blinds the eyes of the unbelievers, so that the Christians
may destroy them at their ease.133 In the midst of such stories we suddenly meet with facts of real
import-
m Page 723.
w Pages 646, 660, 664.
188 Concerning the Grantmenils, p. 707.
» Pages 700-701; above aD, pp. 718-719.
*» Hngues Capet, iv. 232.
1,1 In Edessa, p. 745. The Daughter of Dalmian, p. 796.
The daughter of Bagi-Sijans, who was willing to become a
Christian for the sake of eating pork.
m Page 790. m Page 758.
FULCHER OF CHARTRE8.
189
ance, which could only come from well-informed eye-witnesses, and which
throw light on the most important events of the Crusades.184 In short, we see that the author made inquiries in all directions;
much of his information was undoubtedly derived from men who took part in
affairs; truth and fable flowed in upon him; all of which he reproduces
faithfully, and without comment. Instructive as this author is, when properly used, his narrative would mislead those who are not capable of
distinguishing these two elements.
In conclusion, I will mention in this place the fragment of French
history in the fourth volume of Duchesne :135 though the narrative is too general to be traced
entirely to Fulcher. It gives some details as to the conquest of
Jerusalem, which are only to be found in Bartholf.136 The statement, that Godfrey refused the name and ensigns of royalty in
a city where his Saviour had been crowned with thorns, is first mentioned in this fragment. Moreover,
the merit of this humility is given, not to
m On the strength of the Christian army against Kerboga,
p. 741. On the negotiations before Ascalon, p. 758. On the
Anglo-Saxons in the East, pp. 725, 778.
» Page 85.
m E. g. that Tancred had stormed the town solely for his own purposes. According to the general acceptation, he was with Godfrey on the tower.
190 LITERATURE OP THE CRUSADES.
Godfrey himself, but to the barons who surrounded him.137
There are three authors of the twelfth century who have made use of
Fulcher; but, from their entire want of original matter, it is scarce worth
while here to enter into their merits. Stenzal gives extracts from a work
compiled from that of the monk Robert, with additions from Fulcher;138 secondly, there is the Chronicle of Richard of Poi-tou,130 who has taken his materials from Raymond of Agiles and from Fulcher,
and often in a very confused manner.140 Lastly, there is the Chronicle of Bishop Sicard, of Cremona,141 which contains some original but worthless notices concerning Peter
the Hermit ;142 in other respects, it follows Fulcher word for word.143
137 The usual version is to be found
in William of Malmesbury, p. 143. Histor. Belli Sacri, c. 130. In the preface to the Assizes of Jerusalem, and in William
of Tyre.
m Archiv fur Deutsche
Geschichtskunde, iv. p. 97. But it mentions Martene, in prof,
ad Ekkehardum. It is of the date of 1145.
I have seen a copy of it at Bonn.
139 Muratori, Antiquit. Ital. vol. iv. p. 1058 et seq. The Hist. Litt. vol. xiii. p. 530,
gives sufficient information on the author.
140 It gives the most contradictory
accounts of the Holy Lance, one by the side of the other, without remark.
141 Murat. Script, vii. 586 et seq.
142 Ad annum 1084, ex cod. Ertensi.
Pertz, in his Archiv, vii. 543,
gives a copious account of a copy in Lambert Florid.
rodolph op caen.
The true, primitive sources, the narratives of eye-witnesses, here
cease. We possess narratives written bv individual members of the three nations which formed the main body of the crusading
army. The parallel which we drew between the Normans and the Provenpals, may be extended to the Lorrainers. Raymond of Agiles is
important for Provencal matters, but is far inferior to the ' Gesta* as regards
a right understanding of the Crusades; and the heroes of the two works,
Bohemund and Count Raymond of Toulouse, may be said to stand in the same
relation towards each other as the works themselves. In the same manner,
Fulcher's value rises and falls with the position occupied
by the Lorraine princes. During the march, he gives only a few details which
are of any interest, but afterwards, with regard to
Baldwin I., he takes the first place. Bohemund was then a prisoner, Raymond of
Toulouse was involved in difficulties with the Greeks, and thus the King of
Jerusalem found himself the undisputed head of all the Christian possessions in the East.
V. Rodolph op Caen. The two authors whom we shall next mention, Rodolph and Ekkehard, were
not themselves actually present at the Crusades. Nevertheless, we
192 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
may class them among the original sources, in the
proper sense of the word, since they describe, of their own knowledge, that
which immediately preceded and followed the Crusades,
and since both of their works contain accounts of men who bore a part, and an
important part, in those enterprises.
Rodolph was born at Caen about the year 1080, entered Bohemund's
service in 1107, and was present at the siege of Dyrrachium.
Soon afterwards he went into Asia, and accompanied Tancred on his march to
relieve Edessa.144 He remained attached
to Tancred's person, and wrote his book between the years 1112 and 1118, from
information given to him orally by that prince.145 The chief topic is Tancred, and his great qualities. Rodolph is an enthusiastic admirer, but he is not a partisan. His narrative is absolutely essential to a knowledge of
Tancred's character. Moreover, Rodolph has a strictly historical feeling, in
spite of the poetical form which his work occasionally assumes. His eloquence carries him away: he revels in images, antitheses, and climaxes, but for all this
144 The quotations appertaining to
this stand together in the prefaces of Martene and Durand. That which is there
mentioned relating to his subsequent fate, notwithstanding it has been so
constantly repeated, cannot bo proved.
M He writes after Tancred's death in
1112, and dedicates it to the Patriarch Arnulf, who died in 1118.
RODOLPH OF CAEN.
193
he does not lose sight of the real character of events.
We shall sooner judge of the individual
importance of his work, when we consider how it was written. Rodolph himself
tells us in his preface,14*
that Tancred had never expressly desired him to write his history, nor had he
ever given him information with that view. What we find
in Rodolph, therefore, can only have been obtained
from the chance recollections of the Prince, as conversation brought them out;
the anecdotes were naturally mere fragments, and the connecting them together
Was entirely Rodolph's concern. As far as regards the sequence of events, or a perspicuous view of affairs in general, Rodolph's
work can have no claim to be considered as an immediate authority We must also
distinguish between these fragments. All those which immediately concern
Tancred, his views and his actions, are entirely worthy of belief. To the latter, Rodolph was an actual eye* witness, and there is
no reason to doubt the truth of his statements with regard to the former. We
wish we could say the same of the rest of his narrative.
The events recorded are of two kinds; those which Tancred
had no better means of knowing than any soldier in his army;—the visible
progress
146 In prof.
0
104 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
of a battle, the spot where a combat took place, the date of any
occurrence; or those which Tancred's rank and position in the
army gave him peculiar opportunities of learning;—the plan of an attack,
negotiations among the princes, and the like. For this latter
class of facts, Rodolph is clearly again a perfectly trustworthy authority; the
only regret is, that they are not more numerous. The rest of his narrative
cannot be placed in the same rank with that of the ' Gesta' or of Raymond, as
his information is always at second-hand. Each fact must
be subjected to a searching criticism.
Let us endeavour to explain our meaning by an example; for instance,
the siege of Antioch.147 He first describes the position of the Christian army and its several
bodies. His statements have received no attention, since they disagree with those of Albert of Aix
and William of Tyre ; and excite our mistrust by being mixed up with subsequent
events. Notwithstanding this, I do not hesitate to prefer the report of a
commander on such a subject to all others. This opinion
is justified by the extreme care with which Rodolph explains his plan of
attack, without regard to the chronological sequence of events. When he
describes the several battles fought by his hero, I look upon his account of them as equal
147 Chapter 46.
RODOLPH OP CAEN.
195
to that of an eye-witness. Then follows a whole series of events, all
probably very correct and accurate, but for us utterly useless,
since we cannot reduce them to the same order as
that in which they are given by other authorities. As to the capture of the city, his testimony is decisive. No one can lay claim to
higher credibility as to the treachery of Firuz and the negotiations
that preceded it, than the cousin of Bohemond, who
derived his knowledge immediately from that prince.
Rodolph himself is quite conscious that the manner in which he got his
information, and the order in which he places events, have no reference to each other. During the whole course of his book
there is a want of historical proportion. Some events and characters are
described with excessive diffuseness, while an important
measure, or a whole period, is dismissed with a few words. In many cases he
appears altogether to lose the thread of his narrative,
either in elaborate and dull descriptions or in long-winded
discussions; while he deals in the most arbitrary way with the detail of facts.
As an example of this we may compare his account of the quarrel between Bohemond and St. Giles about Antioch, with that of the other authorities.148 His details, and above all the order in Chapter 9&.
o 2
196 LITERATURE OF THE CRU8ADE8.
which he relates them, differ entirely from those of Raymond and of the
' Gestabut we soon perceive ''that he paid no attention to details;—that
he wished to represent one general feature,—the antagonism between the natures of the Normans and the Provencals
; and that he selected and arranged his materials
with that view. We are obliged to him for the principle thus
indicated, but we know where to get our facts from better sources. It is the
same with the speeches which he places in the mouths of his heroes, and with
the letters which he inserts; they are one and all, as is clearly proved by their style, his own invention, and merely give us an
insight into the author s mode of thought.
The only copy of this book, that I know, is that in the ' Historia
Belli Sacritaken, according to the opinion of the editor, from the manuscript of the author. This is important on account of some marginal notes,
which thus acquire the same authority as the text.149
VI. Ekkehard of Urach.
The productions of Ekkehard as an historian, as well as his connection
with the Chronicle of Auers-berg and the Saxon annalists (hitherto
quite problematical),150 have lately been made perfectly clear
149 Pertz, Archiv, p. 524, confirms this.
140 The extracts belonging to this are to be found in Eccard,
EKKEHARD OF URACH.
197
by the researches of Pertz.151 We may likewise, on the same authority, form a safe judgment on
Ek-kehard's 'History of Jerusalem/
Among the works of Ekkehard, concerning which Pertz has given us
information, we will first allude to his ' Chronicle of the World/ down to the year 1106. At first it only came down to the year
1100, but after the author's pilgrimage to the Holy Land, he enriched the
original work with many additions, and continued it down to the year 1106.
These additions have reference entirely to the history of the Crusades,
and were partly made by the author while he was in Palestine.152
Some years afterwards Ekkehard remodelled this work for Abbot Erkembert
of Corvey, with a special view to the instruction of the Abbot concerning the
Holy Land. The account of the Crusades was extracted from the continuous narrative of the Chronicle, and, with some alterations, appended to the end of the work.153
Lastly, there was a new edition of the Chronicle
in 1125; the work was brought down to that year, and
the text in many places altered. We
Corpus Hist. Medii Mvi, n.
10. Martene, Coll. Ampl. t. iv. pro£, n. 1-5, t. v. p. 512. Also
in the Archiv for Deutsche Geschichts-kunde, i. 397, ii. 309, iii. 590, v. 158. 141
Archiv, vii. 469. » Archiv, p. 473.
Archiv, pp. 482-484. .
19S LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
therefore possess four different versions ;15*
that of 1100, that of 1106, the version arranged for Er-kembert, and lastly
that of 1125. All of them are open to our inspection and comparison: the firsts
in the copy of the Saxon chronicler; the third, m Martene's collection and in
the copy of the Saxon annalist; the fourth, in the copy
of the Chronicle of Auersberg. Let us see whence they drew their . materials,
and what light they severally throw upop. the Crusade.
The information given by the Saxon chronicler15* is
far inferior in minuteness and importance to all the others. The
origin of the Crusade is only slightly-indicated, and the narrative is
singularly meagre until we come to the siege of Nicaea. From this time it is
somewhat more detailed, but no measure is observed. Some of the statements are to be found nowhere else; while many others want only confirmation to
be of the greatest value towards a knowledge of what really topk place.
Fortunately this confirmation is possible. The source whence his statements are
taken word for word, has come down to us, and is in the highest
degree authentic. It is the Report or letter addressed to Pope Paschal II.,.
144 Archiv, p. 499. Further remarks are in Riedel, Nachricli-ten
von Havelberger Handschriften, pp. 7, 11. lw Ad annum 1096.
KKKKHARD OP URACU.
199
on the progress and issue of the Crusades, down to August, 1099, by
Godfrey, Raymond, the two Roberts, and Archbishop Dagobert. This Report was
preserved by Dodechin, and has been, often quoted, but has never, so far as I
know, been applied in this manner. Ekkehard has
neither omitted nor added anything, he has scarcely altered a single word. I
see not the slightest reason to doubt the authenticity of this document.
Ekkehard himself quotes it in his work,156 and Dodechin inserts it, after repeating Ekkehard's annals of
the preceding years. If we examine the several statements, we find them quite
unprejudiced, and exempt from official exaggeration, omission, or misrepresentation ; always excepting the exaggerated statement of the numbers at the battle of Ascalon. The contents are therefore most important.
The edition of the year 1106 differs but little, according to Pertz,
from the work written for the Abbot Erkembert. The time when it was composed
does not appear to me so certain as Pertz and Martene
think. It was clearly written after the year 1108, since the author calls
himself the Abbot of Urach; but it is doubtful whether it was so late as 1117,157 for Ekkehard speaks of the taking of Accon
1M " Sictit epistola docet, a Comite Ruperto delata." Ursp.
copies this; the Ann. Saxo omits it.
147 The ground for this assertion is, that Erkembert, for whose
200
LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
and the marriage of Baldwin I., as having just occurred.168 The history of the Crusade in this copy is much enlarged. Ekkehard has
also shown much research both as to the preparations for the First Crusade, and
its commencement. It is evident that he drew his information from those who
were actually present,159 and he may be considered as a leading
authority for the enterprises of Peter, Volkmar, Gott-schalk, and Emicho. In
the year 1101, a book fell into his hands at Jerusalem, which, as be says, accurately described both time and place of the three years' war.100 He introduced into the text of the Report or letter above mentioned,
numerous fragments from this book, the original of
which is lost. We must deplore its loss, as the quotations he gives prove it to
have been a wholly independent and useful addition to our
other sources of information.161
information as to the pilgrimage he
contemplated this book was written, started on his journey in 1117. This, it is
evident, is not conclusive; Erkembert might have expressed his intention some
years before he actually set out on his pilgrimage. 148 Page 583.
1M As he also expressly asserts in
one passage.
160 Page 620. " Legimus
Ierosolym® libeUum a loco presenti to tarn hujus historian seriem
diligentissime prose quentem, pluri-mos populi Dei per triennium labores in captse Jerusalem lsetis-sima victoria concludentem."
161 Compare p. 521, for Godfrey's
battles in Constantinople; p. 522, for the negotiations between Christians and
Saracens. Regard must also be had to his characteristic of Godfrey as the ruler
of the conquered land.
EKKEHARD OF TJRACH.
201
The most important new matter, however, is the latter portion of his
work, in which the author gives an account of his own pilgrimage in the year
1101. He went part of the way with the main body of the
army which met so calamitous an end in the summer
of that year, in Asia Minor; his account of which is indispensable. On this
matter he is to be considered in the light of an eye-witness; his descriptions are lucid, his judgment clear and free from passion; there is nothing brilliant and
nothing deceptive.
Pertz mentions162 that this chronicle contains fragments from Sigebert of Gembloux. I
know not whether this applies to the rest of the work, but I do not see it in
the part relating to the history of the Crusades. Sigebert has
clearly much that is similar in his narrative, but only in fragments of the
letter of the princes to Pope Paschal. As the whole of the subsequent narrative
widely differs, it appears to me more probable that they
both drew from the same original authority.163 Extracts from Sigebert are also to be found in the fragment of the
History of Jerusalem, which Martene has published ad calcem Ekkehardi.
The connection between the Saxon annalist and
,fi L. c. p. 483.
m Here, as in the following passages, I spare myself the trouble
of quoting the texts. The identity is too obvious not to be seen
at once.
202
LITERATURE OP THE CRUSADES.
this compilation of Ekkehard is still more evident. The discrepancies
between the two are very small, and thoroughly unimportant. That which Ekkehard tells in a continuous narrative,104 is divided by the Saxon annalist according to years. Some few things which Ekkehard assumes or repeats are corrected
as to dates.165 Peter the Hermit receives his letter of credentials from Heaven, and
the catalogue of the princes is enriched with some new names.106 We now come to the fourth compilation of Ekkehard.
It would appear, so far as we can judge from the Chronicle of Auersberg,
that little has been altered in the history of the Crusades; at any rate,
nothing that can in any way modify the real view of events. We must observe, in
reference to the Auefs-berg Chronicle, that indications of a double
compilation are obvious. In the
years 1096-1097, the
181 It is not quite clear in Pertz
whether the history of the Crusades, even in this copy directed to Erkembert,
was taken out of its regular place and transferred to the
end. He says so, in general terms, of the amended copy of the * Chronicle of
the World/p. 482; but at p. 484, he calls the ' Hierosolymita' a somewhat
altered repetition of the history of the Crusades. My account refers only to
Martene s edition.
w* For
instance, the Catalogue of the Princes, the Embassy of the Egyptians before Antioch.
166 The narrative of the devastations
of the pilgrims in Bohemia is added, from Cosmos, Prag. ad annum
1096. We also find here, as in the Chron. Ursperg., the
statement that Archbishop Hot* hard had protected the Jews in Mayence.
EKKEHARD OF URACH.
203
narratives of the Saxon chronicler are repeated; German affairs occupy
the year 1098; in 1099 the author briefly mentions the conquest of Jerusalem, and adds:—" Concerning this divine undertaking I intend to add some
matter." He then repeats the whole book of Ekkehard, as contained in
Mar-tene's edition : a circumstance which does not raise our opinion of the
Chronicler, as the two compilations of Ekkehard contain contradictions which are here carelessly left side by
side.107
Ekkehard's work has been frequently used and copied during the Middle
Ages. I shall here mention the transcripts made in the
twelfth century alone, without attempting to explain their
connection with each other. There are sundry short notices from annals, which
state only that, at the instigation of Peter the Hermit, a countless mass of
people flocked to Jerusalem, and wrested that city from the hands of the
heathen, after having forcibly converted the Jews. These
are the Annates Wirciburgenscs,
Brunvilarenses, and Hilde8/teimense8.m They all communicate the same facts, and Pertz has called attention to
the use made of Ekkehard.169
16" Concerning the destruction of a host of pilgrims in Hungary.
168 The two first in the Monum. t. ii.; the last in t. v.
100 In praf. We see the origin clearly enough, when we compare the Annal. Saxo ("Petrus in finibus emersit Hispanic," etc.)
Dodechin, who is somewhat shorter, and these Annals.
204 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
Otto of Friesingen, in the seventh book of his Chronicle,170 has extracted largely from Ekkehard, making however many alterations
as to order, (which are not always improvements) and many additions. The best known is the frequently quoted but erroneous
statement, that Urban II. had been reinstated at Rome by the aid of the
Crusaders.171
The Chronicle of St. Pantaleone likewise copies the narrative of the
Crusades entirely from Ekkehard, with some variations which
show that the Ursperg Chronicle had been likewise used.172 Nothing more need be said of this, nor of
the German translation.
Godfrey of Viterbo also follows Ekkehard in his ' Pantheon/173 He also has made no additions worth mentioning.
The narrative of Helmold, in his Hist. Slav., deserves somewhat more notice.174 It is quite clear
170 vii. c. 2.
171 Even Stenzel, Frank. Kaiser, ii. 160, accepts this; bo does Gieselar Kirchengeschichte, ii. 2,
p. 45, and quotes Fulcher as well as Otho as authorities; the
two latter, however, state the real facts correctly.
m It contains the passage, "
non modica quippe multitudo," etc., before the proposition, " legimus
Hierosolym® libeUum," etc
171 Pages 338, 339, in Piston,
ii. I will remark here, that the work
which Pertz found appended to the Nuremberg Codex of the same author must, according to the
words given at p. 558 of Pertz, Archiv, vii., be Albert of
Aix's, or an excerpt from him. Hist. 81av. i. 29 et seq.
EKKEHARD OF URACH.
205
that in his history of the Crusades he has followed Ekkehard, or one of
his imitators. He, like Otto of Friesingen and Godfrey of Viterbo, condenses
his original.
Lastly, we must mention Dodechin, who also abridges Ekkehard's
narrative.176
On reviewing this series of copiers, we recognize a similar leaning in
all of them, especially as regards Godfrey of Bouillon and Peter the Hermit.
Their method of condensing is nearly identical. They copy the whole passage about Peter the Hermit in
extenso9m and then compress into the sraallestlim its what they have to say on
the Crusade. They do not mention Godfrey of Bouillon, as Ekkehard does, as
the Chief chosen in Jerusalem, but generally, as the leader of the army.
175 Ad annum 1096 et seq.
176 The only exceptions are Otto of Friesingen and Godfrey of
Viterbo. They speak of Urban II. as the originator of the Cru* sade; in this they follow Ekkehard, who places Peter and Urban
in their proper connection.
206
CHAPTER II.
ALBERT OF AIX.
But little is known of the remarkable Chronicle which now engages our
attention.1 The author is named on the titlepage Albert, or Alberich,2
Ca-nonicus Aquensis Ecclesiae, but it is not quite certain
whether Aix in Provence or Aix-la-Chapelle is intended. It has been much
discussed, but in truth no progress whatever has been made towards a solution of the question.3
Latterly, and as I think with justice, the opinion is in favour of Aix-la-Chapelle.4 At
the very beginning of his book the author calls France the Kingdom in the West,
which would
1 I may perfectly dispense with noticing the early researches
concerning Albert of Aix. None of them contain any description
either of his person or of the sources from which he drew. But
the sum of all the traditional opinions about him was the utmost
veneration.
3 See Bongars, in pnef.
* The Hist Litt. de la France, x. 277, contains something on this subject.
4 For example, Michaud and Capefigue.
ALBERT OF AIX.
207
seem to point more to Aix-la-Chapelle than to Aix in Provence.5
There is one apparent piece of local information, which has been considered as
decisive, but upon which I do not lay so much stress as upon the general
tendency of his views of affairs, which admits of no doubt.6 The
traditions and interests of Germany and Lorraine predominate through the
whole book. Godfrey of Bouillon is avowedly the hero of it,7 and
we shall have frequent occasion to mark the influence of this circumstance on
the tone of the narrative. It is true that all this merely affords a greater probability, but no real proof, of
the German origin of Albert.
The same uncertainty prevails likewise as to the period when Albert
lived and wrote his work. The last events he describes relate to the year 1121.
The only matter that can be maintained with any
certainty is, that the work must have been begun shortly after that date,
as the author in many places refers to the direct information he received from
eye-witnesses. For other questions of importance, such as the nation of the author, and the credibility of his book, we have no
evidence, save that afforded by the
* 1,2: "Amiens, qua) est in oecidente de regno Francie."
8 vi. 36.
7 " Incipit liber primus expeditionis Hierosolymitan© urbis, ubi
Ducis Godefridi inclyta gesta narrantur, cujus labore et studio
Civitas Sancta sancta Ecclesiaj filiis est restituta."
208 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
work itself. Let us therefore examine into the origin of the narrative,
so as, if possible, to come to some conclusion concerning it.
On many occasions Albert himself quotes the oral testimony of
eye-witnesses which altogether forms a considerable mass of authorities.8 He
repeatedly speaks of several persons who communicated these facts to him. They
touch upon the most various circumstances; one refers to the progress of
Gott-schalk through Hungary; six relate to events which befell the great
crusading army; and the last describes the defeat in the year
1101, in Asia Minor. The character, however, of all, is similar; the author
relates the strangest and most wonderful things,
for the truth of which he appeals in the most express manner to his
authorities. In the first, unheard-of cruelties ;9 in
two others, the wonderful prowess of Godfrey of Bouillon
;10 further, the frightful distress of the army in the Phrygian desert,11 and
at Antioch ;12 the
splendour of the Temple at Jerusalem ;13 the
miraculous preservation of the Christians at Ascalon ;14 and
lastly, the fabulous circumstances that occurred at the defeat of 1101, when
for miles round, the earth was covered with
8 Bongars, pref., mentions some, but not all.
•i. 24. 10 ii. 33; iii. 66. 11 iii. 2.
12 iv. 55. u vi. 24. 14 vi. SO,
ALBERT OF AIX.
gold and silver vessels, while the blood of the slain flowed in mighty
streams.16 Such are the narratives which he particularly calls upon us to
believe, and which he details with the profoundest conviction of their truth.
They are not exactly miracles, or proofs-of the direct interference
of God; but the perfection of human heroism, and the display of extraordinary
splendour mixed with extreme misery. Such are the things which especially
interest him, and stimulate him to seek for information
from all quarters.
These sentiments invariably appear wherever the author's book is
opened. That all human virtues were developed to the highest degree by the
Crusades; that it was impossible to conceive greater heroes and more
extraordinary deeds; such were his convictions, such the chief motives to
his researches. " For a long time," says he,16
" was I filled, by the singular and wonderful things that I heard, with a
longing passion to be one of this ex-, pedition, and to worship the Saviour at
the Holy Sepulchre. But as this desire was not
gratified,. I will at any rate set down some things which
15 viii. 21.
18 " Diu multumque his usque diebua, ob inaudita et plurimum
admiranda saepius aceensus sum desiderio ejusdem expeditions.
.... Temerario ausu decreri saltern ex his aliqua memoriae com-mendare, qua? audita et revelatione nota fierent ab his qui pra>
sentes affuissent."
P
210 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
were revealed orally to me by those who were present." If such be
really the case, (and there is not the smallest doubt that
it is so) ;17 if
he has drawn his narrative solely from oral sources*, the work is a very
remarkable one. No one can form an idea of the amount and the variety of the
materials, which succeed one another in an inexhaustible supply, with wonderful vividness and individuality.
Whether he touches on the dream of Peter
the Hermit, or on any period of the Crusades; whether he treats of Godfrey s or
Baldwins reign, or the events that occurred simultaneously at Antioch and Edessa; whether he narrates the general march of events, or enters into
endless digressions, there is ever the same wealth of materials, the same
graphic power of description. There is not a line of reflection;
nor does he ever attempt to shorten or condense
his narrative. The mass of the army hurries on, the armour gleams in
the sunshine, the crimson banners wave; he distinguishes the several nations
and their princes, and describes them in succession. Godfrey, Bohemund, the
Bishop of Puy, and others, lead their hosts with a wise discipline.
And now the enemy show themselves at a distance, on the brow of the mountain
range, mounted on fleet horses and
17 I need not go into details to show that he is not in perfect
accord with any author that has come down to us.
ALBERT OF AIX.
211
galloping wildly about. Immediately ten Christian
knights spring out of the ranks, and with indescribable
courage disperse sixty of the enemy; succours arrive to both parties; on
both sides the numbers and the
excitement increase. Lances are splintered ; the horses snort and foam;
clouds of steam hang over the battle-field; here a Provencal, there a Lorrainer
distinguishes himself; who knows not the approved valour of the one, the early
deeds of piety of another, the strength of a third,
renowned at home and abroad P At
length the Turkish ranks are broken. Then follows the pursuit through mountain
and valley, over field and flood; gold and silver, camels and horses, all that
is precious, becomes the spoil of the warriors of Christ.18 There is an unbroken series of incidents throughout the book; the
princes hold council together, the ecclesiastics pray, the warriors fight,
everything is brought, with epical vividness, before our eyes. The talent of
the author in this respect is marvellous; no passage seems to be made up for the occasion, or taken at
second-hand; there is a rapid flow of lively and pertinent descriptions. It is
impossible to deny that in this book we come in contact with a host of people,
who saw, suffered,
" Almost verbatim from several passages: c. g. the battle of Dory Ueum, the siege of Antioch, etc.
p 2
212 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
and acted as they describe; the voices not of one but of many nations,
speak to us with a thousand tongues; we possess the picture of united Christendom, shaken to its foundations by an event which occupied the minds of
all, from the highest to the lowest.
So far the work is admirable and worthy of all praise; though indeed
very little is said that can de* termine the value of his testimony as an
historian. The question, whether this profusion of details throws much light on
the main object, whether the author can lay claim to
trustworthiness himself, remains wholly untouched. If we examine Albert's mode
of collecting and working up his materials, strong doubts will arise, which we
shall find confirmed, not alone by instituting a comparison of this writer with other authorities, but by an examination of his own statements.
In every historical narrative, we require that the facts should be
accurate as regards time and place; and that it should not destroy its own
value by contradiction. Now it cannot be said of Albert that he fulfils this indispensable condition; be is
regardless both of the external connection and internal consistency of his facts. The same free and easy method which aids his
descriptive powers, hurries him along carelessly in the composition of his book,
ALBERT OF AIX.
513
and accident alone seems to determine whether the separate narratives
to which he gives currency, agree one with the other, or are totally
incompatible. This consideration does not strike Albert; in a hundred passages such discrepancies are obvious, and it is worth our
while to expose some of them.
For instance; he states that the Emperor Alexius and Godfrey of
Bouillon had waged war against each other far into the month of January of
1097, and only suspended hostilities during Christmas, out
of respect for that holy festival.19 He
connects this with a second notice, in which he says, with the most perfect
indifference, that the Greek Emperor sent presents daily to the
Lorraine knight, from Christmas, when peace was concluded between
them, until Whitsuntide.20
He further relates that Robert of Normandy, Stephen of Blois, and
Eustace of Boulogne, were with Alexius at Constantinople, while Godfrey was
laying siege to Nicaea.21
Shortly afterwards he states, from some other authority, that among various Crusaders, Stephen, Eustace, and others, had assisted at the
first attack on Nicsea.32
Again, after the battle of Dorylaeum, which is well known to have taken
place on the 1st of July, 1097, Albert proceeds in the
following man-
.» ii. 10. » ii. 16. » ii. 21. M ii. 22.
214 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
ner:23—"When
the hostile attacks ceased, the Franks, at daybreak of the fourth day,
proceeded further, and passed that night on the summit
of the Black Mountain. When it was day, the whole army descended into the
valley Malabyumas, where the day's march was brought to a close by the narrowness of the pass, the number of .the troops, and the heats of August. As there was still another Sunday of the same month, the thirst of the
army increased, and so forth." The utter indifference to all chronology is here too obvious to require any further examination.
He gives two totally different accounts close upon each other, of the celebrated accident to Duke Godfrey while hunting.
According to one account, Godfrey was wounded by a bear near Antiochetta, and
was only cured some months later; meanwhile, his illness had a baneful effect
upon the whole army.24 According to another version, the Turks immediately
attacked the Christian host. " Caedetn et strages operantur Boemundus et
Godefridus: praeterea illus-cente die, dux Godefridus, Boemundus, et universi
capitanei, exurgentes armis loricis induti, iter in-termissum iterare jubeut,"—whereas Adhemar arranged
the order of march, and Godfrey is named as taking the command of the
rear-guard.26
83 iii. 1. * iii. 3, 4, 58. * iii. 35, 36.
ALBERT OF AIX, 215
He introduces the history of Sweyn, the son of the King of Denmark, in
the following manner:—• It must be observed that Sweyn followed in the wake of
the main army, which was then carrying on the siege of Antioch. " After
the capture of Nicaea, he had delayed
his march a few days, was well received by the Emperor Alexius, and then went
right through Rumania."36 It
appears to me obvious that here he follows two totally discrepant accounts;
from the one the mention of Nicaea, from the other that of the Emperor is taken. As a whole, as the passage now stands, the statement is
devoid of sense.
The author then proceeds to state that Sweyn was killed at Iconium by
Kilidje Arslan. But subsequently it is related in detail how the Sultan, during
the whole of the siege of Antioch, had remained in that city, or was with Kerboga at Mosul, in order to
strengthen the opposition against the Christians.97 It
is manifest that the presence of the Sultan, as the chief enemy of the
Christian pilgrims, was considered necessary everywhere;
just as Godfrey, their best defender, was represented as fighting in spite of
his wounds.28
Baldwin obtains dominion in Edessa; he so distinguishes himself, says
Albert, that a brother
* iii. 64. » ir. 2. 88 iii. 31.
216 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
of Prince Constantine, of the name of Taphnua, gives him his daughter
to wife. It is subsequently mentioned, evidently from some other source, that
he took to wife the daughter of the deceased Prince of Edessa.29
The embassy of Kilidje Arslan to Kerboga again
involves Albert in remarkable chronological contradictions.
Bagi-Sijan sends the former, some time in March, to ask for succour.30
Kerboga says:— " Before six months are passed, I shall have exterminated these Christians from the face of the earth."31 It is obvious that Albert follows some other authority
when he subsequently says, that at the appointed day the Turkish army
assembled ;32 that
it advanced, and in June arrived before Antioch.
In his account of the siege of Jerusalem he again gives accounts
that do not agree. This is evident from a circumstance otherwise unimportant.
During the siege the Christians draw a line of posts over the Mount of Olives.
A little, further on he describes the Mount of Olives as open, and the besieged as having free passage over it, which is obstructed only
after some long subsequent occurrence.33
A Flemish pirate named Guinimer, altogether a » iv. 6.
30 iii. 62. The fight in capite jejunii, in February; then another fight, and then the embassy.
,l iv. 7. « iv. 10. » v. 46; vi. 18.
ALBERT OF AIX.
217
secondary personage, is mentioned several times in Albert's history.
But even concerning him we have conflicting accounts. Guinimer takes Laodicea.
In one place we are told that while the Christians besiege Antioch, the Greeks take Guinimer prisoner, and only release him
at Godfrey's request. In another passage he was still ruling at
Laodicea, when Antioch had become a Christian city, and delivered up Laodicea
to Count Raymond of Toulouse.34
At the siege of Arsuf by Duke Godfrey, it is said that Gerhard
D'Avesnes, who had fallen into the hands of the besieged, was tied to a mast,
and thus exposed to the arrows of his co-religionists. Afterwards mention is
made of the influence of the Christians in Ascalon: it
was so great, says Albert, that the Emir, of his own accord, sent back to Jerusalem the two brothers Lambert and Gerhard D'Avesnes;—the very same
whom we have seen tied to the mast.35
In the history of the Crusades of the year 1101, cases of this sort
occur so frequently, that I cannot venture to determine whether they are to be
attributed to discrepancies in the original reports,
or only to Albert's carelessness. The dates also are full of contradictions. He
says that the army of Anselm of Milan left Constantinople
w iii. 59; vi. 55. * vii. 2, 6.
218 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
on the 9th of June, and Encountered the Turks for the first time on the
23rd.36 Immediately afterwards we find it stated that it
marched for three weeks in perfect tranquillity.87 It
is related of the Count of Poitou that eight days after the reverse of the
Count of Nevers,—that is, in the last days of August,—he reached the Bulgarian
frontiers.38 According to this he would have been in Constantinople towards the middle
or the end of September; but in another place it is said that he spent five
weeks in Constantinople, and then passed over into Asia at the approach of harvest-time.90
He is not more accurate in his topographical, than in his chronological statements. Anselm marches, in the two
or three weeks above mentioned, from Nicomedia to Ancras (which means Ancyra40),
then to Gargara (Gangra in Galatia, not far from Halys), after that many days
"through Magania;" at length Meraasch is mentioned, two days before
the defeat, from which the fugitives escape to Synoplum.
M Lib. viii.: when Whitsuntide drew nigh (9Jh June), they first
negotiated for some time with the Emperor, they then departed.
Cap. 8: they stormed Ancras on the day before St. John's day
<23rd June). 87 Cap. 8, init
* Cap. 31: " Acta sunt h® Btrages" (of the Count of Nevers)
"mense Augusto." C. 34: "Modico dehinc intervailo, dierum
scilicet octo, post hanc recentem stragem, Wilheimua Comes
terram Bulgarorum est ingressus."
" c. 36. 40 As Anna Comnena shows, p. 331.
ALBERT OF AIX. 219
The latter is clearly Sinope. But what lies between Sinope and Gangra
is altogether fabulous; as the retreat takes place on the Pontus, there can be no question of Murasch on the Euphrates. It would not
be worth while to bestow more trouble on the point; the last-mentioned place
has probably slipped into the narrative from
some other authority; in any case the whole scene is laid in a mythical region, like that which he describes as covered for miles
round, after the defeat, with gold and silver.
We have already mentioned Anselm as having reached Ankras in three
weeks. The Count of Nevers enjoys an easier march
thither, and reaches Ankras from Kibotus in two days ;41 and
that no one may confound this with a second town of that name (and in fact
there is such a place at about two days' march distant), Albert expressly
affirms its identity with the town occupied by Anselm.
But the confusion is the greatest with regard to
the army of Poitou, which marches from Nicomedia to Stankona (Iconium), thence
to Finimina (Philo* melinm),4*
then again to Recklei (Archalla),43 in
fact,
41 Lib.viii. 27.
43 A comparison with p. 253 clearly gives this interpretation.
Alexius, it is there stated, went as far as Finimina in the summer of 1098. In the Appendix incerti auctoris ad calo. Rad-Tvici, Philomelium is called Finiminum. Ausbert calls it Vinimis.
42 This is the present Erkle, on the borders of the then Anne
220 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
in the most unaccountable manner, to all the points of the compass. It
is absolutely impossible to make sense or connection out of this chaos of
details.
In his eleventh book, Albert is entirely wrong by one year, as any one
may easily perceive. He places the taking of Tripolis in the year 1108,44 of
Sidon in 1109,45 and
the attack of Baldwin on Ascalon in the year 1110.46 In
the same manner he mentions as occurring in 1110, the attack of
Maudud of Mosul, against Antioch,47
which actually took place in the summer of 1111, as a reprisal upon Tancred for
the capture of Atsareb on Shrove Tuesday in 1111.4a This action of Tancred's is mentioned in another place by Albert, from some other authority, with its correct date. He
arrives, by this means, at the most extraordinary result; he inverts the
sequence of these events, and makes Tancred attack Atsareb in revenge for the
Turkish assault on Antioch.49
I think that this series of examples, taken from
nian Cilicia. This is proved by
comparing iii. 3, where there is a similar confusion.
44 Cap. 1: " Eodem anno, quo
Balduinus ab obsidione Sagittss
rediit."
This must be 1108. Cap. 3: "Eodem anno, xnenae
Martio,"
etc.; and so on to the fall of the town.
44 Cap. 16 gives the year after the
fall of Tripolis, which is right.
46 Cap. 35. The connection of the
narrative gives us the date.
47 Cap. 38.
49 Kemaleddin, in Wilken, ii. 289;
and Michaud, Bibl. iv. 28; also Fulcher, p. 422. 49 zi. 40.
ALBERT OF AIX.
221
various parts of Albert's book, and nearly all of them touching more or
less important events which we learn chiefly from him, will be quite sufficient
to show his method in the composition of his work. He himself,
and we may add, the authorities of which he is the exponent, afford but little
warranty for any order, connection, or unity in his work. The history is a
series of countless fragments, which are wholly unconnected, and agree neither as to time nor place. When you think that you seize upon some
connection, it eludes your grasp. The various and changing figures appear, and
vanish again; and we are most certain to be led astray when they seem to be
brought before us in the most distinct manner. If we select one
particular fact out of the mass, and subject it to a critical examination, we
shall at once perceive that the general character I have given is the true one.
I have before alluded to the great detail, the endless particularity of his descriptions; we soon perceive how similar they are to one
another, how little they assist us in coming to a knowledge of the real facts.
The march of the army is described ; how it advances through
fruitful vales, and through trackless mountain passes; the enemy first attack,
then fly, their cities are taken and plundered, and the like; but in what order
the army marched, how long the campaign lasted, with what object it
222 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
was undertaken; on all these points we learn absolutely nothing, or if perchance something is said concerning them, it cannot be relied upon. The' only example which now
occurs to me, is at page 227, where Adhemar de Puy orders the army to march
upon Antioch; one part was to advance to the attack, while the other was to protect the rear. He then proceeds to give
a long list of the leaders of both: Frenchmen and Italians, Germans and Normans, princes and knights, are so mixed together that we need not the
testimony of other authorities, of which there is plenty,
to induce us to disbelieve the whole. It is exactly the same with the descriptions of battles, sieges, or diplomatic negotiations; there is no lack
of praise of the various heroes; the arms gleam, the swords clash, the walls frown in awful magnificence; but as to how the victory was
actually obtained, what was the plan of the attack or of the defence, we are
left entirely in the dark.
I purpose here, more for the sake of example than of proof, to bring
forward only a few cases:—Nicaea has been taken, and
one should imagine that an his* torian of such an event, especially one who
enters so much into detail as Albert, could have had no more important object
than to narrate exactly all the negotiations with the Greeks, as to the position of the town, and the impression it made upon
ALBERT OF AIX.
223
the Crusaders. In vain do we attempt to find even a mention of these
matters; but in lieu of them we are treated to the edifying history of a nun,
who, after going through a variety of adventures,
was rescued from the Saracens, but, after all, could not be induced to leave
her heathen paramour.
We will now follow the army in its march as far a3 Dorylaeum.
The authorities, which on this point are rare and conflicting, render any
accurate cognizance of the route and halting-places
difficult enough. We therefore place our hopes on Albert's well-known amplitude
of detail, and we fully expect to find, by
his assistance, an explanation of the names of the few places which are
mentioned. Ho however describes with great prolixity how the army advanced for
days between ravines and rocks, how it passed over a river by a bridge, and
encamped in shady meadows. Not only are our expectations
disappointed, but we soon learn that under all this sparkling indistinctness,
we obtain no correct information whatever. If we wish to get from original
sources an idea of some of the most important events of the war, such as the siege of Antioch, for instance, we must
entirely discard Albert as an authority. I have mentioned how the fall of
Antioch was gradually effected by the erection of
224 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
forts round the city: these important constructions are as
nothing in Albert's narrative, when compared with the chivalrous single combats
and romantic adventures which lead to no possible
result. What is worse still, and only appears later, is, that even as to these,
Albert makes the grossest blunders in time and place. I
shall here again allude to Solyman's embassy to Berkjarok and Kerboga. I have
already mentioned it, but as giving an insight into this quality of Albert's book, it is worth further consideration. Solyman and his retinue advance towards Samarcand,
the capital of Khorassan. The Caliph, sits on his throne in all his splendour.
The ambassadors rend their clothes, and bewail the sufferings they endure from the Christians. The Caliph, in his infatuation,
laughs, and utterly disbelieves the tale; he ridicules
Solyman, who justifies himself by producing Baji-Sijan's petition. Kerboga, who
holds the second place next the throne, then exclaims that in six months this
Christian host shall be exterminated, and summons his countless vassals to his aid. I will not reproach Albert for giving us no
satisfactory account of the state of the kingdom of the Seljukcs, and the
position of the other Emirs at Antioch; although in many matters of detail he
is not ill informed about the East, and in this particular passage
he mentions Armenian affairs, which we look
ALBERT OF AIX.
225
for in vain in other Western authors.50 But
when we consider that he has made Baji-Sijan and the Caliph speak of such an
embassy as occurring some four months before, the whole tale appears only a
splendid scene, contradicted by previous facts; for how could the Caliph,
who had already been long ago informed by that embassy,
have any doubt as to the power, nay even the presence, of the Crusaders ? As
far as Albert is concerned, we may fairly conclude that as in the previous
cases, he has carelessly or ignorantly admitted two different versions of the same occurrence. In regard to the statement itself, this picture
of grim heathens in all their power, magnificence, and haughty insolence
frequently occurs. It was then current over the whole world, and popular
tradition gave birth to a number of similar representations.
Let us now review the subject as far as we have come. In the first
place, we have hardly any indications of Albert's personal
character; he has the merit of keeping his own impressions quite in the
background. What we can discover of the character and tendency of our author has been already intimated; his leaning
is rather against than for the miraculous and visible interposition of Heaven,
50 Called Kogh Basil (Corroyasilias in Albert), and Constantin,
(the son of Eupeus in Matthew Eretz).
Q
226 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
in order that he might give greater splendour and prominence to
manifestations of human heroism. It is true that he begins with the glorious
legend of Peter the Hermit, the heaven-sent apostle of
the Crusades, but there is little else of the same kind in the whole compass of
his history. The Holy Lance, which even in the East was the prolific source of
many similar legends, is dismissed in a few lines.51 This
was clearly attributable to Albert, and not to those from whom he had
the legend; for it is impossible to conceive that the numerous wonders and
revelations attached to it could have escaped his notice. It appears to me that
many of his stories must be regarded as having originally fromed part of a collection of mystical traditions, from which he borrowed
them. The fact, that he wholly puts in the background the influence of the Pope
on the Crusades, is a sign of a similar feeling on his part. He is not more
influenced by the hierarchical than the mystical tendency of his
contemporaries.52
His book contains a vast mass of reports taken from eye-witnesses,
active partisans, and other contemporaries. They are given genuine
and unaltered, nor is any attempt made to invest
them with the character of historical authority. They bear
« ir. 43. » i. 6.
ALBERT OF AIX.
227
only on the outward form of things, and on details in their utmost
prolixity, with a complete disregard of the connection or distribution of his
subject-matter. There is no attempt at generalizing. If there is any unity in
the work, it is not to be sought in the authenticity of the facts,
or in the logical mode of handling them. But in order to make a critical
examination feasible, it will be necessary to examine these events as
given by other authorities, and thus to discover whether and how far they may be regarded as agreeing. Their similarity would be the best proof of
the genuineness of the representations of Albert of Aix. We have seen that this
author professes to rely chiefly upon oral statements of eye-witnesses; and
that though much written matter came into his hands, it was such
as would be more likely to be derived from letters or conversation, than from
testimony given with the knowledge that it was to be used for historical
purposes. The contrast between oral and written tradition can only be considered as accidental. When we have to prove the
internal agreement of testimony, we shall find it does
not so much consist in the manner in which the tradition was handed down, as in
the intellectual tendency of the men who represented those opinions. In many cases we think it can be proved that oral and
Q 2
228 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
written tradition have been, so to speak, welded together. This remark
is in its place here, as it helps to explain the otherwise astonishing mass of such accounts.
Guibert mentions Fulcher's history only to append
to it a severe and somewhat groundless criticism. He says, " Fulcherium
quaedam scabro ser-mone fudisse comperimus.,,53 He proceeds in a subsequent passage :—"Dicitur, in sui, ni fallor, opusculi referre principio," etc. No one would suppose from this that he had the book before him, or that he had formed
his judgment upon written documents. It strikes one therefore
as singular, that immediately afterwards he quotes nearly word for word from Fulcher the lengthy narrative of a miracle which
clearly could not have rested on oral tradition.
William of Tyre wrote the first half of his work entirely from extant
authorities, viz. from the ' Gesta/ from Raymond, Fulcher, and Albert of Aix. The concordance even goes so far as to identity of words: it is
so general and complete as to be obvious to the most superficial observer.
Notwithstanding this, he says in his preface
(where he had been previously speaking of another work derived
u Page
552. Fulcher's book reaches to the year 1127 (in other editions to 1124). The passage in
Guibert was written between the years 1108 and 1110. In this
connection of the time there is a strong presumption in favour of the supposition in the text.
ALBERT OF AIX.
229
from Arab sources), "In hac
vero nullam aut Graecam aut Arabicam habentes praedicani scrip-turam solis
traditionibus instructi, exceptis paucis quae ipsi oculata fide
conspeximus." That we must give but little importance
to the "Graecam aut Arabicam/' is proved by another passage, in which he
expresses himself still more clearly on the subject
of his authorities.54
"Hactenus" (until the year 1142); "aliorum tantum, quibus prisci
tem-poris plenior adhuc famulabitur meraoria, colle-gimus relatione—et
scripto mandavimus. Quae se-quuntur deinceps, partim nos ipsi fide conspeximus
oculata, partim eorum, qui rebus gestis praesentes interfuerunt, fide nobis
patuit relatione." It is clear that no one would speak of written works, some fifty or sixty years old, as they would of the narratives of
those who still had a fresh impression of what had occurred in old
times. Indeed, apart from the contents of the book itself, subsequent passages forbid such a supposition; for he says that he had spoken with some old men who had gone to Jerusalem with
Godfrey. He also speaks in a totally different tone when he refers to written
sources in matters of history. He made the proceedings of the Kings and
Patriarchs % of
Jerusalem his particular study, and he says concern-
*♦ Praif. libri xvi.
2S0 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
ing them,65—"Haec omnia etsi aliorum relatione comperta et etiam quorundam
opera scripto man-data, presenti interseruimus narrationi." Here he places
the "relatio" in direct opposition to the " scriptum."56
I see only one way to escape out of these contradictions. It is obvious that the narratives of
Guibert and of William of Tyre were derived from the works of Fulcher and
of others; but at the same time I cannot bring myself to discredit entirely the
positive assertions of the first-named authors. The conjecture seems to me reasonable, that these writings
were circulated sometimes in parts, sometimes as a whole,—as fragments or
extracts; that narratives were framed out of them, were gradually altered by frequent repetition, and were handed down to
posterity in greater or smaller portions, by word of mouth or in writing, without any acknowledgment of
their original sources. Guibert might thus quote such reports with an "ut
di-
u Lib. ix. c. 16.
46 I do not mean by this to bind him to any strict terminology;
for this and many passages in his work should be carefully examined where he mentions the ' traditiones veterum/ ix. 17; xz.
40; xxi. 26, and other places \ meanwhile the passage quoted in
the last shows that without something more precise we are not po think of direct written .testimony. It is quite clear from the
context that a similar phrase (xvii. 7) refers to contemporaneous
events, and cannot therefore come into consideration here.
ALBERT OF AIX. 231
citur," while William of Tyre might give them as from " old
reminiscences."57 It
is easy to conceive, how such a process once introduced
would favour the maintenance of, and the addition to, oral tradition. The
genuine narratives were split up into fragments,
and made to appear similar in outward appearance to the current rumours of the
day; and by this means it would not be difficult to melt the two into one.
Thus much at least appears obvious, that after half a century, William
of Tyre still found himself in the midst of living
traditions, whence he drew copious and varied information We do not want this
explanation for contemporary authors, as we have already distinctly
acknowledged a large portion of them tbvjbe indebted to oral reports. Guibert and Baldrich
say distinctly, that what they did not themselves see A>r copy from the *
Gesta/ was told to them. Fulcher asserts the same as to the history of the
three years from 1098 to 1100. The ' Gesta Expugn. Hieros/ and Orderic
acknowledge it as to their additions to Baldrich and Fulcher. We
57 We can further quote here v. 21," Audivimus quod inter
alios Dominus Flandrensis et Dominus Tancredus ascenderint;"
as well as vi. 14, "clericus, ut dicitur," etc. (the history of the Holy
Lance). If these passages do not distinctly prove the general
diffusion of the writings of the original authors, it still shows
how deeply imbued William of Tyre was with the still current
traditions.
232 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADE8.
have already said that this was probable in the cases of Fulco and Gilo
and the monk Robert. Among all these Guibert is the only one who had authentic
historical information, besides having access to the ' Gesta/ The
interpolations of all others depend solely on the credibility of some
tradition handed down to them in the manner I have explained. It is therefore
not difficult, with their aid, to determine the character of the authors
from whom they quote.
The first thing that appears is an evident tendency to details of a purely human and, if possible,
of a personal character. They have this in common with Albert,—that they omit
all general considerations. Baldrich makes but one addition to the ' Gesta/
relating to the battle with Kerboga: " A refreshing dew fell during the morning, which wonderfully restored the
troops."68 We
have already mentioned Orderic's taste for
anecdotes and episodes. Among those we have named above, he is the author who
gives the most discrepant accounts. Guibert relates Baldwin's rise in Edessa, specially quoting eye-witnesses, and describing at
great length the ceremony of the adoption of Baldwin : how the actors in it
stripped to their shirts, and embraced each other naked.69 But
the general position of » Page 120. M Page 496.
ALBERT OF AIX.
233
Baldwin, that he was beloved, and the old prince hated, by the people
of Edessa, is involved in utter confusion. Most of the additions to the '
Gesta/ in respect to the siege of Antioch, are equally absurd and improbable; for instance, the princes
work with their own hands at building a fort f° Tactikios wears a nose made of gold.61
Bishop Adhemar causes the troops to be shaved, so as to distinguish them from
the Turks.62 Wherever Fulcher quits the Gesta Expugn. Hieros.
we meet with the same sort of fables. Firuz, to meet with Bohemund, makes his
way into the Christian camp by stealth, —" quasi aliquid empturus."63
Fulcher relates of Baldwin how he hewed down a Turk\ the
' Gesta' says that he pierced the Turk and his horse through with one stroke.64 And
so it goes on. We occasionally meet with a fact of
importance in several of these authors, but it is always something which
strikes their individual fancy.
But in order to see clearly the richness of invention displayed in these traditions, we must compare the descriptions of the same event given by various persons. In a
number of cases we find, besides the correct account given by original authorities, another reading totally different, resting
» Page 499. « Page 601. ° Page 661.1
83 Page 566. « Page 585.
234 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
solely on tradition. Albert furnishes many examples of this mode of
proceeding. Sometimes the versions are numerous.
For instance, there are four versions of the accident that occured in hunting
to Duke Godfrey j65
three, of the death of Roger of Barneville j66
there are four incorrect accounts of the treachery of Firuz;67 and
at least as many unauthenticated of the death of Godfrey.68 I
could easily bring forward more cases of this sort, but I prefer to give some
examples of a contrary proceeding, equally indispensable to a
knowledge of these authorities.
Ekkehard wrote, in the year 1100 or 1101, a narrative of the defeat of Gottschalk in Hungary, the incorrectness of which he
discovered in 1106, and rejected without hesitation. But the same errors are
found in detail in Albert's narrative, although he wrote after 1121; so that
in spite of its falsity, the tale was repeated twenty years after.69
64 Albert, iii. 4; Guibert, p. 537; William of Malmeabury,
p. 144; Lupus Protosp. p. 47.
06 Besides the correct statement in Raymond, p. 150; in Albert, p. 248; and the Hist. Bell. Sacr. c. 66.
87 Fulcher, p. 391; Gesta Erped. Hieros. p. 566; Alb. iv. 15 j
William of Tyre, p. 705.
88 William of Malmesbury, p. 144; Guibert, p. 548; Albert,
vii. 18; Matth. Eretz.
• Albert, i. 25; Chronogr. Saxo, a.d. 1096; Ekkehard, c 11; the doable-dealing negotiations of Kalmani.
ALBERT OF AIX.
285
Albert gives an account of the battle of Dorylaeum, which Gilo had
heard in Paris some years before: Radulph, who wrote in Antioch after the year
1130, had information which contradicted Albert's account: " Yet it is true/' he adds, " the contrary is still very frequently related/*70 It
was indeed altogether groundless; nevertheless it was
spread abroad at that time in Germany and in France, as well as in Syria and in
Palestine. Radulph has also an account of the well-known quarrel between
Baldwin and Tancred in Tarsus, which might have been corrected by reference to the ' Gesta ;'71 yet
Albert brings this forward in his history, quoting (it is easy to see) from
Lorraine authorities.73 Such
is the spirit of tradition; it is bound by no rules; sometimes it rejoices in
an endless multiplication of incidents and narratives,—in crowding
together figures, in changing forms; sometimes it seizes particular points, and
obstinately retains them: they are spread far and wide, and, after many years,
they re-appear in some spot far distant from their original source. No search is made into time, place, or fact. Here, various occurrences
are blended together without scruple; there, one and
70 Albert, ii. 88; Gilo, p. 216; Bad. c. 21; the accidental or
intended division of the army.
71 Bad. c. 36.
73 Lib. iii. 5; for more particulars see further.
236 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
the same event is introduced in a new place, as if it had not occurred
before. As an example of the former, we must read the account of Peter the
Hermit in Guibert and in Fulco; there we see the expedition of Walfer, Peter,
Volkmar and Gott-schalk, mixed together; a fabulous whole is compounded out of the beginning of the one, the middle of another, and the end of a third; some of it is pure fabrication,
some of it an echo of the traditions found in Albert; in a word,
it has the effect of a wild, perplexed dream. The following example is
of a different nature:—Bohemund's enmity to the Emperor Alexius was notorious
to his contemporaries ; no one imagined that the Norman
traversed the Greek Empire in the year 1097 with any peaceful intent. There were reports of incitements sent by him to
other princes ta make war upon Alexius. Albert is perfectly aware of this, and
relates that Duke Godfrey declined this invitation.73
Orderic has the same fact, but he states that the princes to whom appeal was
made were Duke Robert and Count Stephen.74
These remarks are sufficient to render obvious the great extent of the
circle which we are contemplating. The essential point in Albert's narrative, which is common to so many others, consists 71 Albert, ii. 14. 74 Page 727.
ALBERT of AIX.
237
in this. We cannot look on them as the account of one certain and known
person, whose character and position enable us at once to recognize the value
of his work -. we
must rather regard them all as portions of one
great tradition, current throughout the whole of the West, the credibility of
which we must test at every step. By some accident, a large mass of this
tradition has come down to us, under the name of Albert. The unscrupulous
manner in which Albert has adopted whatever was most strange
and contradictory, precluded the opportunity of selecting or recasting
his materials; as might have been expected from a single industrious author. We can only look to the contents of each individual
fragment, and ask ourselves, without reference to
Albert's share in the matter, bow far the accounts of the authorities on whom
he relies can be trusted. We must do the same with regard
to all the other separate narratives, the character
of which we have been at some pains to describe. We must try to discover
how much truth there is in their statements, and how much is sheer invention.
It is quite clear that we can depend but little upon their veracity. No
one can deny that where three or four different versions of the same occurrence are given, two or three of them
must be
233 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
fabulous. With regard to the history of the First Crusade, the result
of my inquiry is that Albert and all his companions seldom adhere to the truth;
but their reputation has hitherto been such, that I am bound to bring
forward some evidence as to the truth of my assertion, which I will do from the
later portion of Albert's book. For this purpose
I will select some part of the history of Baldwin's reign; in which the divergence in particulars will lead us immediately
to positive contradiction in generals.
One well-known difference between Albert of Aix and William of Tyre
lies in their accounts of the quarrel between Baldwin and the Patriarch
Dagobert, which are totally at variance with each
other. William, who professes to have made special
inquiries into the subject,—and his diligence is quite obvious in this
case,—clears the Patriarch of all blame. It is true, he says, that Dagobert had
opposed Baldwin's accession to the throne, but he bad
done so only because the Lorraine party had refused the Patriarch the
accustomed feudal homage. At any rate, it was entirely owing to the slanders of
bis old opponent Arnulf, that an open rupture took place; which, however, was peacefully arranged before Christmas,
1100. Dagobert's position remained undisputed, till Arnulf, by inces-
ALBERT OP AIX. 239
santly working on the clergy, forced Dagobert to escape into Antioch in
1103.75 Albert gives another turn to the whole affair. He
passes over in complete silence the suzerainty of the Patriarch over the crown,
and thus deprives Dagobert's conduct towards Baldwin of any
legitimate excuse. Hereupon Baldwin concerts bis measures, after Tancred, the protector of Dagobert, had left the kingdom, and appeals
to the Pope at Rome; who sends, at his request, the Cardinal-Legate Maurice.
According to Albert's account, Maurice examines into the affair during the
month of March, 1101, and pronounced Dagobert's suspension. At
Easter, Dagobert gives Baldwin a bribe of three hundred gold pieces to
reinstate him, makes friends with the Legate, and the two waste the revenues of
the kingdom in secret orgies.76
At page 131, Albert proceeds with his history.
The king is in want of money, and comes, some time in August,77 from
Joppa to Jerusalem; he asks a certain sum of the Patriarch, who denies his
ability to give it. Baldwin having
received infor-
78 William of Tyre, pp. 780,790, 797. 78 Page 308.
77 The date is not quite clear. He remained in Ca&area till
the day of John the Baptist; he then went to Joppa; after three
weeks he advances against the Saracens, waits some time for
them, and then dismisses the army; " nec longo post haec inter-vallo," he goes to Jerusalem, vii. 56-68.
240 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
mation from Arnulf, surprises the two ecclesiastics in their cups; a
violent scene ensues, when the Patriarch is forced to leave
Jerusalem, goes to Joppa, and thence to Antioch to Tancred, in March, 1102.
Baldwin remains with the Legate in Jerusalem, paying him high honour. In the
beginning of September, having received intelligence of
hostile armaments, he assembles his army, and
advances toward Joppa.
At page 332, we find that after Baldwin had beaten
the Saraeens in July, 1102, he summons Tancred and Baldwin of Burg, in
September, to assist him against a fresh attack. They come to Joppa, and Count
William of Poitou with them. Dagobert arrives with them, and they agree to assist the King, but only on condition of a fresh inquiry into Dagobert's case. On this being conceded, they advance with him against
Ascalon. Dagobert's deposition was however confirmed anew, under the presidence
of the Cardinal.
Much as modern criticism has done for the history of these times, it has hitherto attempted in vain to reconcile
these contradictions. In most of the narratives, we find both accounts side by
side, and the choice between the two is left to the reader. It frequently
occurs that William of Tyre, though extolled for
his unprejudiced description of these
ALBERT OF AIX.
241
events, and for his careful research, incurs suspicion ; while Albert's copiousness of detail is amusing, and he is consequently subjected to
a less rigorous examination. Fulcher appears to me to pass over this matter
with intentional silence; for which reason the information, that might have
been gleaned from various notices in his diary, has been entirely disregarded.
There is a notice of this sort to the effect, that in March,
1101, Tancred had gone from Jerusalem to Antioch.78 How
was it possible then for Baldwin, after Tancred's departure,
to begin a quarrel with Dagobert, and appeal against him to Rome; for the
Pope to name a Legate; for the latter to reach
Palestine, go through the inquiry, and pronounce Dagobert's " suspension;
and all this, before the end of the month of March ? Albert was forced to
antedate the commencement of the quarrel; but even so, he cannot establish his
statement; since we learn, from a thoroughly impartial eye-witness,79 that
Maurice was actually in Syria before Baldwin set foot in Jerusalem; that in the
year 1099, Maurice had been sent with a Genoese fleet
to the
78 Page 407. " Eo tempore" (he had spoken of the small
population in the kingdom) " contigit in Martio mense, Tancre-dum Cayphan oppidum suum Balduino relinquere, Tiberiadem
quoque, et Antiochiam ambulare."
79 Caffaro, ap. Muratore, vi. 249.
R
242 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
East.80 The
whole of the first part of the narrative therefore falls to the ground.
Albert says that Baldwin took Caesarea on Whit-Sunday (9th June), and
stayed there till the 24th (the birthday of John the Baptist). Caesarea, however, according to the testimony of Fulcher, who was
present, fell on a Friday, the 7th of June, and Baldwin proceeded, immediately
after its fall, to Ramla, where he remained four-and-twenty days, in
expectation of a hostile attack; as this did not take place, be returned to Joppa.81
Fulcher then proceeds:—" Cum autem postea auribus semper ad eos intentis
per septuaginta dies quieti sustinuis-semus, intimatum est regi Balduino,
adversarios nostros permoveri, et jam parati nos appetere ac-celerebant. Hoc
audito fecit gentem suam congre-gari, de Hierosolyma,
videlicet, Tyberiade quoque, Caesarea et Caipha."82 If
we compare this with Al-
80 He came in the autumn of 1100 with the Genoese to Laodicea ; and I should think with them to Jerusalem during Lent of
1101. In Oct. 1100, Baldwin of Edessa had gone to Jerusalem
by way of Laodicea. Maurice was then in Laodicea, and, as is clearly proved by Fulcher's silence, did not go with the King.
That he went by himself by land in mid-winter is not at all likely,
considering the troubled state of those provinces.
81 Fulcher, p. 410 (c. 25, 26).
88 Fulcher's chronology proves itself. The battle took place
on the 7th September. If we reckon twenty-four days from the
7th June, we come to the 1st July; from that date to 7th September are sixty-nine days.
ALBERT OP AIX.
248
bert's account, we perceive how irrational
Dagobert's flight to, and sojourn at, Joppa, would be. His wish was to avoid
Baldwin, whereas in the month of September he would exactly meet with him, even
according to Albert. I have no hesitation, after this, in disbelieving
Baldwin's presence at Jerusalem in August, the scene at the
feast, and all that followed. We cannot solve the contradiction in these two narratives, by supposing that Fulcher suppressed
Baldwin's departure and return, from a desire not to touch
upon ecclesiastical matters. He expressly says that Baldwin's armament took place, not from Jerusalem,
but from Joppa; with which the Queen's presence in Joppa agrees.83 She
might very well be there if Baldwin remained two months; but it would be
impossible to account for her stay according to Albert's version of the
matter. Albert has exactly inverted the facts; he brings Baldwin to Jerusalem, and Dagobert escapes to Joppa; whereas the former was at Joppa,
and the latter remained, undisturbed by any royal demands, at
Jerusalem.
A similar case, the mention of the Count of
Poitou, gives us some insight into the credibility of the events of the year
1102. Fulcher has on
83 Compare the letter to Tancred, which Fulcher and William
of Tyre give verbatim.
R 2
244 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
this subject this simple statement i8*—" Cum prope Paschaesset, Hierusalem perrexerunt" (viz.
William of Poitou, Stephen of Blois, and the other princes of the crusading
army of 1101, who went from Joppa), "qui postquam cum Rege Balduino Pascha cele-brando pransissent, Joppen omnes regressi sunt. Tunc Comes
Pictavensis navim ascendens et Fran-ciam remeans a nobis discessit." The
rest of the princes fall shortly afterwards in a disastrous battle with the
Turks. And this same Count of Poitou, who had sailed back to France at
Easter, suddenly advances from Antioch in September, joins the other Crusaders
before Ascalon, and disappears as suddenly as he had appeared. Yet neither
Fulcher, the King's chaplain, nor Radulf, Tancred's companion,
nor Matthias, Baldwin's subject, mentions one word of this armament of
Tancred, of Baldwin of Burg, or of William of Poitou. On
the contrary, Fulcher expressly says :85—"
Expleto bello " (in July) " Rex Joppen reversus est. Postea quievit
terra bellorum immunis, tempore sequenti autum-nali atque
hiemali." Here again we cannot attribute Fulcher's reticence to his
wish to say nothing concerning Dagobert, as there is no question of Dagobert,
but of quite different matters.
To sum up: we see that the statements of
Wil-
M Page 414. « Page 416.
ALBERT OF AIX.
245
liam of Tyre agree, both in details and essentials, with what we learn
of the events of those times from other sources; his dates are all confirmed,
and he is never open to the slightest charge of contradiction or incongruity.
With Albert the reverse is the case; in attempting to get at any
connected narrative, we invariably find that his
representations are at variance with all others. With regard to places and
dates, as we have them from the most undoubted sources, we can by no means
accept his testimony. We cannot therefore believe the
sum of his facts, or the character he gives of persons or events. On the
contrary, we perceive that his facts are made to bear out a foregone conclusion. The traditions upon which Albert's history
rests celebrate Baldwin's princely splendour; and to
support this view the numerous fictions are invented to which we have alluded.
But this is not the place to pursue the subject further.
Raymond of Toulouse laid siege to Tripolis from the Pilgrim Mount in
1101 or the beginning of 1102. He took up strong
positions in the neighbourhood, and occupied the lesser
Gibellum in 1102: not in 1104, as Albert says; for we possess documents of the year 1103, by which Raymond made a gift of half the town,86 and
then died in 1105.
M Albert, ix. 26: " Proximo dehinc anno." Before that he had
246
LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
The quarrel between his immediate successor, William of Cerdagne, and his son Bertrand, threatened to destroy the
fruits of his labours. The latter, says Albert,87
appealed to Baldwin for assistance, promising to do homage to the Crown in
the event of receiving succour. Baldwin gladly accepted
the offer. At the same time Tancred, Baldwin of Edessa, and Joscelyn of
Courtenay, weVe at strife; Baldwin, in order to settle differences,
summoned them all to meet him in the camp at Tripolis, where they appeared with splendid retinues. All the Frankish princes of Syria met
together, in order that Baldwin might arbitrate between them.
To collate and sift all the narratives touching on this
point, would require a severe examination. It is sufficient for our purpose to
call attention to two statements which are above suspicion, and completely
illustrate the point at issue. Fulcher gives a tolerably detailed account of the quarrel between William of Cerdagne and Bertrand.88 He
blames them for quarrelling about the possession of the city, even before they
had taken it. " Ad nutum
reported as 1103. Caffaro (p. 263) says indeed," Primo anno hujus
compagna?," a.d. 1104. But the connection gives the error and
the correct year as 1102. The document of the 16th January,
1103, is in the Hist, de Languedoc, ii., preuves, p. 360. The
history itself indeed attempts to save Albert, but by a most
forced construction.
87 xii. 9. « Page 420.
ALBERT OF AIX.
247
Dei/9 he
adds, "momenta transvolant et cogitationes hominum vanae subvertuntur. Et
non fuit mora : postquam Rex Balduinus ad illam obsidionem ve-nit, causa
deprecandi Januenses, ut eum juvarent eo anno ad
capiendum Ascalonem et Beruthum, nec-non Sydonem, et ordiebatur concordiam
fieri de duobus comitibus memoratis . . . interiit Gulielmus ille
Jordanus." Here we see a different reason for Baldwin's presence; he is
not the highly honoured King, from whom the other princes expect judicial decision on their rival claims, but a chieftain seeking
assistance, who is incidentally called in to act as a mediator. It may be said
that these negotiations, important and well-known as
they were, might have escaped the notice of Pulcher; but we would
quote, as settling the question, a statement of Matthias Eretz of Edessa.89 This
author, whose information on Armenian subjects is always good, (ill informed as
he was on matters occurring in distant countries,) relates the Tripolis events with many variations; "but in another place he
states, that in the summer of 1109 the Count of Edessa and Joscelyn of
Courtenay had made an unfortunate expedition to Kharran in Mesopotamia, which
he describes in some detail. There is no longer therefore any room for doubt; and Matthias both ne-
89 Notices et Extraits, ix. 325.
248 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
gatively and affirmatively destroys all idea of the congress of princes
spoken of by Albert. This is in fact simply a proof of the opinion which had
been formed in the East, of the position, power, and character of King Baldwin.
People could not, or would not, believe that he really had
very little influence over the rest of the princes. They had no doubt that the
Patriarch had succumbed to Baldwin's energetic assertion of his
rights. Albert's lively imagination seized upon this idea, and dressed it out
with a variety of anecdotes, the inaccuracy of which we have here
attempted to prove.
We have already stated that Baldwin was the centre round which the most
fabulous inventions were grouped. We shall see that the same may be said with
still greater truth of his more famous brother, Godfrey.
We have already quoted the introductory words in Albert's
history,—"Incipit liber primus expeditionis Hierosolymitanae urbis, ubi
Ducis Godefridi inclyta gesta narrantur, cujus labore et studio, Civitas Sancta
sanctoe Ecclesiae filiis est restituta." This
assertion will astonish any one who has paid the most cursory attention to the
original sources; as he will not be able to discover in them the slightest
evidence that Godfrey bore the chief part in freeing the Holy Sepulchre. After this preface of Albert's, we expect to find Godfrey
ALBERT OF AIX.
249
the leading spirit in the crusading army. But when we examine his work,
we are astonished to discover no confirmation of the Duke's fame. Godfrey's ability is proved by many facts; but in the first half of the
narrative he is not conspicuous above the other princes; and as it proceeds,
his name is frequently omitted altogether in the account
of the most important actions and discussions. Particular
passages strike us in the course of the narrative from the sharp and insulated
manner in which they stand out. Godfrey, who, even according to Albert's
representation, contributed little to the success of the undertaking, is all at
once represented in strong terms as the head of the army,
the most noble of the princes, the pillar and support of the enterprise. When
he was ill, the whole Christian host was prostrate; when God wished to raise it
up, he permitted the Duke to recover. This is repeated in
various places. But, as I have often remarked, it is vain to look to Albert for
any connection between what has been said before and what follows; we seek in
vain for any cause of Godfrey's preponderance. From an apparent equality with,
or even inferiority to, other princes, the Duke suddenly
emerges, for no reason whatever, to this dazzling eminence.
And this surpassing glory vanishes, while the words which
announce
250 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
it still ring in our ears. Absolutely nothing comes of this solemnly
proclaimed pre-eminence, save a few chivalrous hand-to-hand encounters,
productive of the most insignificant results.
The origin of Godfrey's fame, for which worldly events are insufficient
to account, is thoroughly mystical and superhuman. A command
proceeding immediately from God places the Duke
in the midst of the enterprise—a fact as miraculous as the dream of Peter the
Hermit or the apparition of the saints at Doryheum. If it be once admitted that
the Duke owes his exaltation to God's command, there is no
longer any question of a worldly nature, nor does anything depend upon his
individual actions. Albert, with perfect simplicity, admits the miraculous into his narrative, without caring to observe how inconsistent it may be with temporal affairs. In this manner alone was it possible to
transmit to posterity a true and lively picture of the ideas then prevalent. We
shall soon see a clear, critical intellect engaged on these ideas, and
shall have to mark the disturbing influence it exercised on them.
The complete purport of this legend or romance cannot be gathered from
Albert's work, but it was he who first gave a fixed form and a uniform character to the tradition which we have described. We must review the
whole circle of this tradition
ALBERT OF AIX. 251
to make its nature clear or comprehensible; this will give a sufficient
insight into all parts of the legend. The individual elements are scattered and
fragmentary, while portions are frequently illustrated by incidents which
William of Tyre derives from older and long-lost authorities. But the common
ground upon which these inventions have been based is perceptible, even after
long years and in the remotest lands. Flitting and confused as are the outward and visible figures, the fundamental principle remains fixed
and unshaken under the most various influences. The poetical vigour of
nations is as remarkable for its richness as for its permanency. We are
transported into times when the world was young; when religion, poetry, and a community of spirit grew up in an unconscious but
intimate connection. As yet there were no artists by profession, no works of
art with fixed forms or clear unity of design; but the imaginative impulse of
thousands found expression in pictures full of life
and variety, in the many-coloured expression of one simple idea.
Nor is it Godfrey alone who inspires his admirers with such poetical
images. There are many traces of a similar glorification of Provencal and Norman heroes, but none so complete and so full.
I would trace the cause of this, not so much to the
252
LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
deficiency of the sources of our knowledge, as to the nature of the
subject itself; for Godfrey's character and
the position he acquired especially favoured the invention of such
legends. But as I have before stated, neither Bohemund nor the two Roberts, nor
Raymond, were without a halo of poetical glory. ^
We have observed above, that Albert shows, in the whole tenor of his work, that his nature was essentially of the earth,
earthy. He endeavours to paint in rich colours the splendour of chivalry; he
disposes in few words of the main and marvellous object of his work, the
glorification of Godfrey; mystical as is its character, he presents it in
the form of worldly poetical splendour. If we consider
that he was only a collector of current fragmentary
legends, that* he omitted many wonderful narratives,
and that, in those which he used, he discovered a human stamp, we are compelled to look to some higher source for the origin of
these legends.
When the crusading army marched to the East, animated with religious
enthusiasm, the Church had already made a great advance towards the subjugation
of the world. It was still ifivolved in violent contests;
especially when its ambitious tendencies encountered any attempts at reformation. Other and deeper
thoughts may have
ALBERT OF AIX.
253
influenced Gregory VIII.; but most of the clergy considered themselves the restorers of a debased morality, and liberators of the
Church from the bonds of the flesh. Every aspiration after faith and holiness
of life took the form of asceticism; monastic Orders of the strictest
discipline arose; and the doctrine of works of mortification, came to
high honour. The pleasant inspirations of art were dried up at their very
sources. Poetry withered away, as its true soil—a vigorous and healthy appeal to the senses—was counted sinful. The history
of literature show3 the suspension which then prevailed, and how
subsequently other causes gave rise to a new development of its power. But if
there were few poets, the poetical element still existed; on the first great
impulse given to it, it manifested all its vigour. It seized upon the subject of the Crusades, which had
been in so great a degree the fruit of the zealous ascetical spirit we have
spoken of. The outbreak of poetical feeling showed what force it still
retained, even under the pressure of the opposing tendency.
Nor was it long before, out of this wide circle of unconscious poets,
some individuals arose who invested the subject with an artistic form, and
brought it within the proper province of poetry. How far the work of Gregory
Bechada belongs to
254 LITERATURE OF THE CRU8ADE8.
this category, it is impossible to tell from the few notices there are
of him j90 but the romance of 'Gandor of Douay/ and some others by unknown authors, indicate their origin more clearly.91 Of their contents, and their relation to our
history and to other poems, I shall speak elsewhere; I will here only remark
that, in spite of greater freedom in their treatment of particulars, and a more
decided mixture of religious colouring, these authors belong to the same school of tradition which has hitherto engaged our attention.
90 Foncemagne's opinion on this subject (Hist. Litt. de la
France, t. xi., avertiss. p. 34) appears to me forced and untenable.
The text of Gauf. Yos. p. 296, by no means justifies us in receiving a double emendation, even in the improved version of
Foncemagne.
91 Michaud (Bibl. des Croisades, p. 273,) gives excerpts. A notice of them is to be found in ' Roquefort de la Poesie Francaise,'
p. 162, where he calls Gandor (after Fauchet P) only the continua-tor of the poem begun by Benar, or Benaus.
255
CHAPTER III.
WILLIAM OF TYRE.
While the West appropriated and developed the history of the Crusades in the
manner we have described, a very remarkable man was engaged in Palestine with the praiseworthy
object of giving to that kingdom a history of its past, and to Europe a
memorial for the future. He wrote with a strong feeling of patriotism, and at
the same time under the sad impression that he could only
find solace for present sorrow in the recollection of former happiness. The
means at his disposal and his personal character fitted him for the
task. The strong and persistent energy with which he mastered his materials
enabled him to produce one of the greatest
historical works of the Middle Ages.
William of Tyre was born in Palestine, but we have no information as to
the place of his birth or
256 LITER A TUBE OF THE CRUSADES.
j bis parentage.1 He was educated in Europe, most i probably at Paris; but this surmise is
merely conjectural ; for he himself (our sole
authority) only states that he quitted Syria about the year 1163, in order to
pursue his studies. Four years afterwards we find him an archdeacon of the
Church of Tyre, a friend of King Amalric, and tutor to
the subsequent King Baldwin IV. Even at that time the King employed him in the most important negotiations; he went to Greece in
1168, to ratify an offensive alliance with the Emperor Manuel
against Egypt. Personal affairs
carried him to Rome in 1169. On his return, at the death of the Bishop of
Bethlehem, he was made Chancellor of the kingdom, and in the year 1174
Archbishop of Tyre.2 From that time, he was naturally considered one of the most important
members of the aristocracy of the land; he took an
active part in all negotiations of any importance, and his influence was felt
by all ranks throughout the kingdom. The time and place of his death are
involved in mystery; the information on this point given by Hugo
Plagons is unworthy of credit, and scarcely deserves
mention.3 The idea of writing his history had occurred to
1 Bongars (in prof.) gives all needful particulars of his life. I
only quote here what appears essential to a comprehension of his
personal character.
* William of Tyre, xxi. 9.
* Compare Wilken, iii. 2.261.
WILLIAM OP TYRE.
257
William of Tyre in the year 1170. Besides his own wish, there was an
additional reason in the command of King Amalric, at whose desire he had already written a history of the Arabs since the time of Mahomet. For
this latter work he employed Greek and Arabic materials,
above all the history of Saith, the Patriarch of Alexandria. Amalric also busied himself in procuring him materials, and doubtless much that was valuable in this book has been lost. It cannot be
asserted that it would have been free from error. The work of William of Tyre
which we do possess precludes such a supposition. But that work shows a
more complete and scientific knowledge of Saracenic life than any of his
contemporaries or co-religionists possessed. It appears that in the year 1182
he had nearly completed the collection of his materials; at all events, he then
began to put them into form; and he mentions in several passages, in the first and nineteenth books, the year we have
given as the time when he wrote them.4 In
1184 he had completed twenty-two books, and brought down his narrative to the autumn of the preceding year. He was then in doubt whether
to continue to portray the in-
4 i. 3; ziz. 21. In accordance with xxi. 26, Bongars supposes
that this part was already composed in 1180; but nothing is
there stated, beyond the fact that in that year William of Tyre
had deposited certain papers in the archives of that town.
8
258 LITERATURE OP THE CRUSADES.
creasiug miseries of those times, and determined to complete the
history of the year 1184 in a twenty-third book.6 But
his purpose was not carried out; the work that has come down to us breaks off
with the first chapter of that book.
The manner in which the author collected his materials appears to me
similar to that already described. He wrote partly from information obtained from those who had still a vivid recollection of the past, partly from his own observation and the honest reports of eye-witnesses. It is an important consideration, that the
materials of his first fifteen books are still, for the most part, extant in their original sources. Albert of Aix, Archbishop Bald rich, Fulcher of Chartres, Raymond of Agiles, and Chancellor Gauthier, supply him with the materials for the First Crusade,
and the reigns of Godfrey, Baldwin I., and Baldwin of Burg. We shall see
further on what changes he introduced; but, in general, the accuracy of the
copy spares me the trouble of pointing out individual instances. Before
passing, however, to the consideration of his own original contributions, I
will notice a few doubtful points.
' Prof, i., and xxiii. In this he aays that he had divided the
whole of his work into twenty-three books. He wrote his preface in 1184. The preface to his twenty-third book, in which he
was still undecided, must therefore have been written first.
WILLIAM OF TYRE.
259
Lib. i. cap. 8, a copious and detailed passage on the misery of Europe
in the eleventh century, is taken from Fulcher (p. 381), with some rhetorical
ornaments of his own added. I have no doubt that an account (cap. 13) of the
contention between the Emperor and the Pope, as well as the
description of France after the Council of Clermont (cap. 16), are to be traced
to Fulcher (pp. 383-385).
There is a notice of the imprisonment of Hugo the Great, interpolated
from Fulcher (p. 384) into the narrative of Albert. I
should also attribute the origin of cap. 16 to the same author. It is easier to
trace to Fulcher the origin of the statements regarding Robert of Normandy (p.
205), and to Albert the accounts of the arrival of Tatikios and Peter the
Hermit.
Lib. iii. cap. 2. It is said that the pilgrims at
first stormed Nicaea without forming in regular order. This is but a repetition
of Albert's statement, that the Crusaders on their arrival
were not daunted by the appearance of the towers, but charged the enemy at several points, at full speed, with colours flying and couched lances.
Lib. v. cap. 1-3. The battle before Antioch is compiled from Albert and
Baldrich; the beginning of cap. 1 is taken from Albert; the end of cap. 1, as
well as cap. 2, from Baldrich; and cap. 3 again
s 2
260 LITERATURE OP THE CRUSADES.
from Albert. That the two accounts, composed under
different circumstances, contradict one another does not seem to disturb our
author.
Lib. vi. cap. 14. The story of the Holy Lance is told as shortly as possible. Nevertheless the mention
of the Apostle Andrew and other visions, shows that the narrative was taken,
not from Albert, who is equally short, but from Raymond of Agiles.
On the whole, Albert is the leading authority in these books up to the capture of Jerusalem. The battle of Ascalon is related from
Raymond, and then, as far as the twelfth book, he chiefly follows Fulcher. The
end of Prince Raymond of Antioch is taken from Gauthier, and the further the
narrative advances, the more copious is the use made of
unknown authorities. Occasionally we are deceived
by an apparent appeal to eye-witnesses. According to the confident assertions
of those who were present,—says he, speaking of a successful naval fight,—the
sea was stained red with blood for some distance. But
the whole narrative is only a copy of Fulcher, who, as far as we can learn, had
never trusted himself on the sea.6
Although the interest of these first books is not very great, our
respect for William of Tyre increases when we
examine the mode and the extent * Fulcher, p. 434.
William of Tyre, xii. 21.
WILLIAM OF TYRE.
261
of his own researches. He has carried his inquiries in all directions;
selecting with the greatest skill the original authorities for each separate fact, and eliciting with careful accuracy the
substance of their statements. As he does not quote his authorities by name, it
is difficult to distinguish them; nevertheless the few whom he does name
give a favourable impression of his method and capacity. We observe that he made inquiries
concerning Tancred's proceedings in Tiberias itself, where that prince ruled
for many years. Tancred's administration of that town, he says, was so
admirable that his memory was still cherished by the inhabitants.7 He
also sought information concerning Idumaea; he says that he was told such and
such things by the older inhabitants of a castle that was to be built there,
etc.8 He received an account from Hugo Embricus, lord of Biblium, of the
taking of that city by that prince's grandfather. We believe his statement,
although he makes a wrong application of it.9 When
King Amalric was separated from his wife Agnes, on account of their near consanguinity, William of Tyre was in
Europe, and was un* William of Tyre, ix. 13. 8 xx. 20. 9 xi. 9. He confuses it with the capture of Gibellum by Bertram of Toulouse and WUliam Embricus, concerning which the
documents in the Hist, de Languedoc, ii. pr., p. 374, and CafFaro,
p. 253, give further particulars.
262 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
able later to obtain anywhere precise knowledge of the relationship in
which they stood to each other. After long inquiry he applies to the Abbess Stephanie of Santa Maria Major, herself a relation of the Queen.10 Hugo
of Caesarea, one of the first barons of the kingdom, supplies him with
various details concerning his embassy to the Egyptian Caliphs, and his
negotiations with Schirkuh, the uncle of Saladin; very probably also as to
certain treaties with Saladin himself, in whose favour Hugo constantly endeavoured to direct the policy of the rulers in Jerusalem.11 When
Amalrics last enterprise against Egypt failed, William
of Tyre is unable to conceal his astonishment. On his
return from Rome to Syria, he sought from all the barons, and then from the
King himself, the causes of this failure.12
These examples show, how all the sources of information
then accessible were open to him, and how little he neglected his
opportunities. But the number of his various authorities is still more apparent, when he treats of doubtful or remarkable
events; and although he does not mention his originals
by name, it is impossible not to recognize the care and accuracy of his
inquiries. He continually assures us, that he had learned this or that fact
from
10 xix. 4. 11 xix. 17, 28. » xx. 20.
WILLIAM OF TYRE.
263
persons whose veracity was above suspicion,—barons who were themselves
present, or old men who had themselves borne a part in the
affairs. If he received contradictory accounts, he gives both versions with
strict impartiality; and this throughout his work, in great and small matters,
and on every occasion. The examples, which I shall take without any special selection from among a host of similar cases, will bear out ray
assertion.
The first army of the Crusaders was afflicted in Antioch with a
dangerous epidemic, and William of Tyre gives various accounts of the causes of
the disease.13 The
losses at Edessa were attributed by some relaters of
the events to the Archbishop, while others acquitted him of all blame.1* He
had reports of the expedition of Louis and Conrad from eye-witnesses, who told
him the numbers of the army, and gave him various opinions as to the relations subsisting between Louis and Raymond of Antioch.16 He
does not trust himself to speak with certainty of the corrupt practices which
brought the siege of Damascus to such a fatal termination in 1148; but he
brings together many and very discrepant
accounts.16 He
speaks in the same manner concerning the capture of Paneas in 1165, of the
strength of the army with which Amalric waged
» vii. 1. 14 xvi. 5. » xvi. 21, 27. |: xvii. 7.
264 LITERATURE OP THE CRUSADES.
war in Egypt, and of the origin of the last rupture
between Amalric and the Fatimites.17
After the victory of Baldwin IV. on Mount Gisard, he says: " I know not
how many we lost ;" and adds, " Audivimus a quibusdam fide dignis,
quod centum viderant loricas extrahi." Concerning
the strength of the enemy, he states that he had formed his opinion after
careful inquiry from the most trustworthy sources.18 At
this period, as chancellor and metropolitan bishop, he took part in the most important affairs, but even then he did not neglect
to prosecute his inquiries. It was he who had to conduct
the odious negotiations in 1175 with Count Philip of Flanders. After quoting
speeches and counter-statements, he adds, that be had obtained a clue to the motives of the Count, partly from various narratives, and partly from the
Count himself.19
We are thus introduced to as many authorities as Albert of
Aix-la-Chapelle can produce. The latter has united in his narrative the rumours
of the West; William of Tyre lays before us a host of Syrian
authorities. It remains now to determine where they agree and where they
differ. At first sight the preference would appear to be on the side of William
of Tyre. He moves in the highest ranks 17 xk. 10, 24; xx. 5. "xxi. 22. 19 xxi. 14.
WILLIAM OF TYRE.
265
of the world which he describes; he numbers among his authorities the
most honourable names; the care he takes to prove and sift his evidence is
quite manifest. But as a favourable impression is apt to
deceive, and praise requires proof, we will inquire whether he understood the
right mode of using his carefully collected materials, and to what end he
employed them.
General Character of the Work.
One circumstance which will strike even the most superficial reader,
and must be mentioned here, is the undeniable merit of the style of William of
Tyre. The language is naturally the Latin of the Middle Ages, mixed with
Southern French and Italian elements. But, together with the influence of classical studies, we can trace a thorough command of this
mixed language, and evidences of general cultivation. The clearness of his
narrative also is deserving of praise, and he possesses the talent of selecting
the most striking passages from those of inferior value. His pictures are
remarkable for detail, without being overcharged; his language is to the
purpose and dignified; his thoughts are thoroughly well expressed. The same
treatment is maintained throughout with no apparent effort. The whole
is a work cut, as it were, out of one block;
266 LITERATURE OP THE CRUSADES.
we feel at once that William of Tyre displays the faculty, not of a
chronicler, but of an historian ; otherwise he could not
have attained such ripeness and evenness of stvle.
The more we examine the work in question, the more clearly we perceive
the author's mastery of his materials. He has a quick eye for grouping his objects, so that he can class them according to their affinity. Before entering into any new subject, he completely disposes of
the consequences of the first. The subject of his history shows the value of
this treatment. A feeling for order and clearness is the most important quality
in an historian, who has to describe the complicated
intercourse between four Christian and ever-varying Saracenic empires, to show
where they acted singly or in alliance, where Greek and European elements are
at work, and where several distinct autonomies pursue their various interests. On most occasions we must award
the highest praise to William of Tyre. No complication of circumstances,
however tangled, disturbs him; he finds the best way of unravelling it, without
affecting the other portion. For instance, in his fourteenth book, he has to narrate the dissensions
which originated in the arrival of the Emperor John at Antioch. The subject was
an embarrassing one. The personal character of John, and of Prince Ray-
WILLIAM OF TYRE.
267
raond,—the political position of Antioch towards
Constantinople,—the relation of Raymond to his own vassals,—all had to be
considered. John had vast plans against Antioch, as well as against Noureddin. King Fulco and the Count of Tripolis shared the interests of
Raymond, and notwithstanding
this, it was the defeat of the two by Noureddin which immediately forwarded the
views of the Emperor. William of Tyre explains all this
with the fullest detail, and is so little embarrassed by the number of his
subjects, that he goes out of his way to insert into his
narrative the part which the kingdom of Jerusalem played in the
matter. The whole is developed in so clear a manner, that even Wilken has
closely followed William of Tyre in the disposition
of his subject.
The introduction of the work gives us a remarkable example of the same quality. I have already made favourable
mention of the preface to the 'Gesta Francorum/ But the stamp is very
different. In the latter work the mystical element of the First Crusade is
strikingly expressed; indeed, the great merit of the passage
consists in its showing so clearly the existence of the feelings which prompted
that enterprise. William of Tyre, as he was not
an actor in the Crusades, but speaks only from an historical point of view, embraces a far wider range. He
268 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
begins with Mahomet, the originator of the quarrel: lie then enumerates
three violent attacks on Christianity, each of which called up
important counter-effects, the last of which was
the First Crusade: and so he comes to his subject. He clothes this subject with
details, and developes his theme quietly and broadly. In most of the modern
authors we find a more ornamented style and a greater abundance of materials,
but they are inferior in the power of recognizing and
appreciating essential points.
On the other hand, it cannot be denied that this very attempt to
separate his materials has led the Archbishop in jnany cases too far, and
involved him in obvious errors or want of tact. We frequently notice, that to preserve the regularity he has prescribed for
his work, he changes the chronology, or at any rate makes it
incomprehensible. We learn from Fulcher, that during the captivity of Baldwin
II., Eustace Grenier was named viceroy of the kingdom; and that the
Venetian fleet arrived shortly before Eustace's death: whereupon William of
Buris was made viceroy, and was present at a successful
sea-fight. William of Tyre depends solely on the authority of Fulcher, but his
great object was to tell the deeds of the Venetians in a
consecutive narrative. He therefore states the death of Eustace and the
election of Buris as his successor;
WILLIAM OP TYRE.
269
after which he reports the arrival of the Venetians.20 The city of Paneas was betrayed in the year 1129 by one of the tribe of
the Assassins into the hands of the Christians; three years afterwards it was
given as a fief to the Knight Rainer of Brus. William
of Tyre, who relates with great detail the war of Damascus
which occurred in 1129, omits to mention the capture of Paneas until Rainer
takes possession of it. No one would guess from his context
that three years had intervened between the two events.21 We
might quote many similar instances, and many where, for the sake of the form of the narrative, the chronology, although
indicated, is inverted. For us it is sufficient to have discovered his mode of proceeding, and that even facts are occasionally made
to bend to it.
That the chronology of William of Tyre is
the weakest part of his book, has been proved in many passages by Wilken, who
corrects his errors by appealing to Arabic authorities.22
Frequently, however, the error is clearly the transcriber's, in cases where
William of Tyre marks the time by giving the date of the year and that of
the reign of the ruling prince. There
will always, however,
20 Fulcher, p. 434.
William of Tyre, xii. 20, 21.
31 William of Tyre, xiv. 19.
32 I will only mention Wilken, iii. 1, p. 239 ; 2, pp. 4,17, 139,
by way of example.
I
270 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
remain a considerable number of errors of which we cannot acquit him.
He is not devoid of a feeling for accuracy, but he is not
sufficiently careful in minor details. But, what is most remarkable, we often find no dates at all, as for instance in the account of
the reign of Amalric. Wilken proves here beyond a doubt, that without the aid
of Arabic authorities, it would be impossible to restore the chronology by a
reference to William of Tyre.
We are however convinced that the defect we have indicated is rather an
exception to, than a consequence of, his general mode of
proceeding. The accuracy, even in the more trifling details, which we should
have expected from his industry, is confirmed in the
fullest manner by the Oriental authorities. These latter are, generally
speaking, ampler in detail and frequently full of anecdotes; they care only for
the single fact which engages them for the moment; the utmost they do is
sometimes to give a very general view, as in the instance
of the religious zeal of Noureddin or of Saladin.23
William of Tyre, on the contrary, has always his subject fully in view. He
frequently breaks off a digression which would have led him too
far; for brevity's sake, he suppresses many details, and
u Reference to the " excerpta " in Beynaud will easily convince
anyone.
WILLIAM OF TYRE.
271
there is no question but that his views are much larger than any to be
found in Kemaleddin or Abu Yali. We are therefore the more pleased at the
agreement between these authors, which often appears in unimportant trifles, is
seldom disturbed by patriotic or religious prejudices, and is even
occasionally confirmed by their very discrepancies. We should have been
surprised had William of Tyre received less uncertain accounts of the march of
Saladin upon Mosul; on the other hand, it is very surprising that, amidst some obvious errors, he should bring together so much that was
true about the Egyptian Fatimites. Still more striking are some passages where,
in contradiction to all European authorities, he gives a statement which is
only to be found in Arabic or Syrian writers; e.g. that of the battle of Harran, in the reign of Baldwin I., which he
describes in a manner similar to Kemaleddin, and quite differently from Radulph
and Albert. The only native historian, Matthias Eretz, of Edessa, attests the
justice of his choice.24 I should dwell longer on this point were I writing
a general history of the Crusades. But
in this
34 William of Tyre, x. 29. Eadulf and Albert are directly at
variance with him on the cause of the war. Both give a completely false version of the defeat of the Armenians, and Albert
makes Tancred carry on a war of revenge, which falls to the
ground merely from its dates.
272 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
monograph I must be content to indicate the fact, and refer for proofs to Wilken's third volume, where they will be found in great number. It
must be remembered that the history of William of Tyre is written with unity of
design, and also that, with a few trifling exceptions, he has not anywhere had
recourse to Arabic or Greek authorities. When the Emperor
John was besieging Schaisar on the Orontes, he had to fight several important
battles before the Franks arrived. William of Tyre does not mention this, and
only makes the war begin on the arrival of the Frankish
princes.28 The
facts therefore for which he had not the authority
of the Latins, were to him as if they did not exist. The fullness and truth of
his account of Arabian affairs depend entirely on their close contact with the Christian powers. He tells us nothing new concerning the descent of Zenki, or of Noureddin,
or of Schirkuh; but he characterizes them admirably as soon as they come to
close quarters with the Franks. Whenever he investigates matters which we can
test by Arabic authorities, he so far agrees with
them, as we have before observed, as to leave no doubt of the accuracy of his
narrative. But we can always easily recognize the totally different origin of
the accounts. It is impossible
* Wilken, ii. 632.
WILLIAM OF TYRE.
273
to think that a person of his experience
should have had such religious pride as to despise learning something from Arabic sources. He himself says, that for his history of the
Arabs, he had consulted and used Arabic writings. It was clear therefore that
for other reasons he rejected such authorities. The solution appears to be,
a dislike to mix up with his own narrative elements so dissimilar. This would
suppose no very high idea of his own critical power; but the very
unskilfulness shows his power, and his wish to carry out his work diligently. This remark takes us back to the character of his work, which,
in comparison with those before alluded to, springs from a
totally different soil. It represents a complete whole, marked by great unity
of thought, and independence both in material and form.
Character of William of Tyre.
After the preface to which we have alluded, William
of Tyre follows Fulcher in his report of the condition of the Holy Land. The
manner in which he enlarges on the materials of his original is here seen
clearly. Fulcher bewails the excesses of the robber chiefs, the desolation of
fruitful provinces, the oppression of the poor and
helpless. William of Tyre, on the other hand, from the same materials
t
274 LITERATURE OP THE CRUSADES.
draws a picture of universal demoralization, arising not from mere rude
lawlessness, but from positive wickedness.26
Fulcher is oppressed and afflicted by the universal misery around him. To him
the advent of the Crusades is a Divine interposition, a miracle in the strictest sense of the word. William of Tyre asserts that,
as matter of history, the Crusades really did produce some moral
good; but he assigns to them a human instead of a
miraculous origin, and attributes them to the general guidance of divine
Providence.
The train of thought which lay at the bottom of this different view of
events is apparent throughout
the book. The author believes in a living personal
God, but in all human matters feels the necessity of a temporal foundation;
whereas the author of the ' Gesta Francorum9
immediately refers to some prophecy of the Bible.
William of Tyre advances no step in his work until he has
satisfied himself on all points of time and place. In relating the setting out
of the first band of Crusaders on their march, he takes
occasion to give concise but excellent observations on the kingdom of Hungary. Before Godfrey reaches Constantinople, our author endeavours to
give a correct view of the condition of the Greek empire, and after* Fulcher, pp. 381, 386.—William of Tyre, i. 8,16.
WILLIAM OF TYRE.
275
wards of the state of Dalmatia, Bulgaria, and Ser-via. He then
enriches the narrative of the Crusade with a description of Constantinople,
Nicaea, and Antioch. Edessa and Jerusalem are described, and the most important
events in the history of those places are brought under review. Thus he proceeds step by step; and as he approaches
his own times, his digressions become richer, more ample in detail, and more
trustworthy. In his account of Amalric, he dwells at greater length on the condition of Egypt; he gives whole treatises on the position and age of the Egyptian Babylon, on the origin of the Fatimite
caliphate, on the number of the mouths of the Nile, the increase of the Delta,
and the Indian traffic across the Isthmus of Suez.37 His researches go far back into antiquity; and wherever he finds differences of opinion, he does not rest untif he has
solved them. He invariably gains his object, which is to obtain a sure foundation for the facts he relates; and, with the same view, he never omits
to mention the death and succession of popes and of the Roman and Greek
emperors; giving in most cases a short review of their reigns, and a
description of their most remarkable qualities. He was not likely to pass over
such subjects. He had seen how » xix. 14,19, 22, 26.
T 2
276 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
the Patriarchs of Jerusalem had maintained their rights, or had
suffered injustice in Rome; the quarrel between Frederic I. and Alexander III.
had been felt even in Christian Syria; he himself had negotiated important treaties with the Emperor Manuel, and had attempted to
benefit his native country. These circumstances had not only facilitated his task at the commencement, but were of great assistance to him
in working out the plan of his history. He had got
far beyond the ideas of the first Crusaders; above all things he looked for
logical connection and historical coherence.
Arrived at this point, we shall proceed to institute a comparison between William of Tyre and the earlier authorities,
and shall then examine the method he has pursued in
making use of his materials. It is not difficult from
this point to trace, in all directions, the contrast hitherto only indicated in
particular instances, of his personal character and his intellectual activity.
As we have before observed, we possess many narratives of* the
Crusades, some written by the actors themselves during the progress of the
events, while others derive their origin and their widespread
notoriety from the wonder of contemporaries. A large army, enthusiastic beyond example, without unity, almost without
leaders, and only
WILLIAM OP TYRE.
277
actuated by one common impulse, had recovered the Holy Sepulchre. They
were in a foreign land; the war was over, and yet everything resembling civil, social, or indeed any sort of government, was totally
wanting. They ruled only the ground upon which they stood. The population was
hostile; he who chose to stay, had to trust solely to his own right-arm and his
good sword. Under such circumstances,
with feelings of entire sympathy, and hearts full of that enthusiasm which had
armed Europe, were the first narratives of the Crusades composed. The West
seized upon these manifold and vague traditions; the ideas which these deeds
called up were not less lively in the breasts of the
auditors; each one selected only those descriptions which touched his own
imagination, and if he found none such he invented them. The original sources
told little that was logically connected; at any rate, we can discover but little, and there is much to disbelieve in individual
cases. The tradition of the legend has an original unity and a wide
significance, but not of a kind to be of use to the historian of daily events,
and of the laws deducible from those events.
We will now return to William of Tyre. He was devoted to his country,
which then represented a political whole, if any country
did. It
* xxii. 27.
WILLIAM OF TYRE.
279
Frequent as were the defeats, they were nearly
always caused by the imprudence of the leaders and want of discipline of the
soldiers, never by cowardice of* sheer inactivity on either side. It is true
that the influence of the first kings had ceased; they had, year by year, sent
out their roving parties to pillage
the country. But the real reason was, that they now formed a state among other
states; they no longer stood face to face with a reckless enemy with whom no
law was to be kept. They had come to a tacit understanding with those who,
although implacable enemies, were still regarded as men possessing equal
rights with themselves. At any moment an armistice or a truce was possible; and
the war, when it commenced, was carried on in regular form. In the internal
policy of the kingdom, the corporations exhibit the same political
life: they were numerous and regularly organized. It is true that frequently
the interests of the public were sacrificed to those of the corporation. For example, the two great Orders of the Knights Templars and
Hospitallers did great mischief by their pride and
obstinacy. But in general, facts speak louder than the denial of historians, as to the existence of unity of purpose. It was at this period
of decay that circumstances resulted, in the formation of that
body of laws called
2S0 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
the Assizes of Jerusalem. The aristocracy had various representatives whose abilities no one contested. The wealth and importance of the cities is abundantly proved by
the taxation ordered in 1182 r9 and
examples of any, excepting those who belonged to the Orders, neglecting to
comply with the requisitions of the State, are rare. From Guido's time they cease to be so. On a general review of this state of things, we
shall find many defects, but we shall reverse the usual judgment, that at this
juncture the noblest attempts of individuals failed to act upon the depraved
condition of the masses. That which was really wanting to the State
during its whole existence was an able ruler, capable of giving a strong
impulse to the desire for progress,— a prince such as Bohemund during the First
Crusade. But even such a one, under the conditions in which he was placed, would scarcely have offered a lasting resistance to the attacks
of Saladin.
If this is acknowledged, and if it be further conceded that William of
Tyre was thoroughly imbued with the views above indicated, we cannot fail to be
struck with the contrast which he offers to his
authorities for the First Crusade. William of Tyre was by nature calm and
dignified, not susceptible of those emotions which tend to
excitement "xxii. 23.
WILLIAM OP TYRE.
281
or fanaticism. His excellence does not display itself in brilliant
actions or in striking words, but he wins our esteem by his quiet virtues. He
exhibits self-possession rather than force; he awakens our confidence, if not our admiration. As an historian he is conscious of the
discordance of his authorities, without being
able to conquer the difficulties they present; and as a statesman he fails to
master public affairs, but he discerns and judges them in a manner which few of
his contemporaries would have been capable of doing. He consistently lamented Amalric's covetous policy
towards Egypt ;*° and he showed lively gratitude to the Emperor Manuel, his
most powerful protector. But he never exercised any practical influence on
politics, and never, in spite of all his efforts, succeeded in promoting the Greek interests.81 We
may remark that he never forgets, in the author, his position as Chancellor. He
passes rapidly over the events of 1148, and is obviously reticent on later
domestic affairs. He complains bitterly how difficult it is to tell the truth without giving offence, and promoting
fresh dissensions in the kingdom. But his caution has this merit: it produces
an extreme
30 Lib. xx. o. 11.
31 See, for example, the negotiations he began with Philip of
Flanders.
* Compare xxi. 7.
In the ninth book he reoognizes the dan-
WILLIAM OF TYRE.
283
This tendency, which has only been indicated in general, will become
more evident when we trace its influence in the manner in which the materials
are treated in detail. The feelings of most men are naturally expressed in the
most marked manner when the object to be described has attained its culminating
point. For instance, in the First Crusade, which was the product of
religious and martial enthusiasm, the mind was fixed, on the one side,
on the contemplation of heavenly things, and, when possible, on miraculous
manifestations; on the other side, on the various displays of heroism, or (so
prevalent in those times) those of the spirit of adventure.
It is well known that towards the close of the eleventh century Europe was
teeming with visions, dreams, and miracles. That there was an immediate intercourse with Heaven was the conviction of every one. This
feeling coloured the whole mental existence of the pilgrims,
whose character and modes of thinking were formed in a manner totally independent of the hierarchical power of the Church. I have already
mentioned to what an extent the contemporary authorities were pervaded
by this feeling, and have pointed out the traces of various other
gerous position of Godfrey of Bouillon very clearly. But the
personal picture that he draws of this prince, spite of all the
author's zeal for inquiry, keeps alive the old feeling of former
times for that prince.
284 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
tendencies in William of Tyre. But apart from his secular knowledge and
habits of thought, we can recognize even in his religious opinions a totally
different origin. He is full of the spirit which animated
the Christian Powers in the East toward the close of the twelfth century; the
interests of Christianity are still prominently put forward, but the mystical
enthusiasm has vanished; and, in lieu of the zealous asceticism which
characterized that period, we perceive hierarchical
tendencies. It is no longer the pilgrim or the mere ecclesiastic who writes,
caring only for ecstatic visions or penitential practices: we recognize the
bishop, whose life has been passed in the bosom of a well-organized Church, and in the transaction of temporal affairs of the most important
nature. Albert says of Peter the Hermit, after he had fallen asleep, "In
visu ei majestas Domini Jesu oblata est/' William of Tyre says, " Visus
est ei Jesus Christus quasi coram positus exstitisse.,,33 The difference in expression sounds trifling, but in it we see the
contrast between a miraculous reality, and a pious but natural dream. In
Albert's account, Peter goes to the Pope, the Pope goes to Clermont, and on the
8th of March, with wonderful rapidity, Walter the
Penniless was with his thousands on the frontiers u Albert, i. 2.
William of Tyro, i. 11.
WILLIAM OP TYRE.
2S5
of Hungary. We perceive that Albert here recognizes a miracle,—the
immediate interference of Heaven. But even here William of Tyre
finds a natural solution, in which however a religious
enthusiasm, somewhat modified and conformed to reason, is
still traceable. He relates how Peter the Hermit
visits all countries, stirring up men's minds, and actively
promulgating the allocution of the Pope. In Albert's narrative the matter
ends there; after Peter has fulfilled his mission, there is no
need of any further mention of the issue. But William feels it necessary to have a more satisfactory conclusion, and
states afterwards how the Surians, after the taking of Jerusalem, gave him,
their deliverer, their warmest thanks.34 As
before mentioned, William of Tyre, in his account of the finding of the Holy
Lance, follows Raymond of Agiles, who in this passage tells
of infinite signs and wonders from heaven. The greater portion of these are
wholly omitted by William of Tyre, whose account is, from quite different reasons, almost as short as Albert's.35 He
again follows Raymond in the narrative of the election of Godfrey as king. The account of an event of such importance may have
appeared to him too short; at any rate, he determined to amplify it by
additional details. There is no
question that on
M viii. 23. 85 Eaimond, p. 179.—William of Tyre, ix. 2.
236 LITERATURE OP THE CRUSADES.
this point he had the richest choice of materials. There was scarcely
another occurrence which had been so much amplified by enthusiastic tradition.
Visions, miracles, all the glory of heaven and earth, had been here
brought together by Albert and others. But all this touched him little; an
insignificant anecdote, the chief point of which
was the complaint of the servants at having to eat cold meat, was inserted with some satisfaction in lieu of these Splendid wonders. It
was sufficient for him that Godfrey's religious fervour was excited by fine
altar-pieces; he willingly omits all supernatural ornaments.
He comes later to Godfrey's earlier history, and
even here again he discards nearly all that is miraculous.
The further he proceeds in his narrative, the more rare are the
opportunities for displaying this dislike. With scarcely any exception he
remains on the firm ground of ordinary matters of fact. I only remember one passage where there is express mention of a miracle; but even here he brings forward
the arguments against a solution by natural causes, in so circumstantial a
manner as to induce us to suppose that he was not convinced himself. He does not exactly deny it, but he shows no enthusiasm.
He inserts the story because he had heard it, but he would have held the same
view of
WILLIAM OP TYRE.
287
Divine Providence, had nothing of the sort come to his knowledge.86
Occasionally expressions such as these occur: an
individual misfortune, or the general deterioration of their
position, was caused by the wrath of God at their sins.87
Meanwhile it requires no great investigation to see how
great is the contrast between such opinions and the belief in miracles
entertained by his predecessors. In one place he examines into the causes of
the decay of the state;88 he
gives three reasons: the first of which is, the anger of the Lord; but he puts
in the same class the weakness of the existing race of men, and the union
of the formerly disunited Turkish kingdom. Naturally, and as befitted an
orthodox Christian of those days, he is far from denying the general providence
of God; but that God interferes in any other way except by the operation of natural causes, is, to him, rather a matter of history than of
actual experience. In one
36 The Holy Cross puts out the fire of the steppes through
which the army was marching. A white knight then leads the
Christians through pathless mountains. It was distinctly observed that on their camping he had vanished, and was never
seen more (xvi. 11,12). It was the unlucky expedition of Baldwin III. against Bosra. It was said that the Franks had never
suffered such misery in Syria, and stood so much in need of
Divine assistance. Under these circumstances prodigies arose,
as they did on a former occasion during the siege of Antioch by
Kerboga.
37 xx. 19. n xxi. 7.
288 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
word, the ground of his religious views is, that he recognizes only one
mystical fact; namely, the existence and the sensible action of
the Church, in the hierarchical form it had then assumed. He dwells upon this
development with the greatest enthusiasm; first, so far as it concerned his
own immediate sphere, but also with a view to the more important unity of Roman
Christianity. On this point he had made the most accurate and original
researches, in which he displays all the advantages of his historical skill. I have in a previous passage attempted to show, that from him
alone true information is to be obtained of the fate of
Dagobert, the first Patriarch. We have no doubt the same may be said of later
doubtful events. I will only mention one example,—his
account of the Patriarch Radulph of Antioch.89 The
amount of detail, the perspicuity and ease of his narrative, show clearly how
much his mind was occupied with these topics. We are the more thankful to him,
as without his account the important change in the
state of men's minds in Syria would have been almost unknown to us.
When we turn to the temporal side of these events, we see a similar
coincidence. Instead of adventures, we
meet with campaigns; instead of » xv. 12-17.
WILLIAM OF TYRE.
280
chivalrous single combats, we read of regularly constituted armies and kingdoms. The change runs through the whole book; I
will quote one instance, more with the object of bringing this change prominently to view, than for the sake of proof. The
contest for Antioch was the culminating-point of the knightly exploits of the
Crusaders of that day, and William of Tyre took, as the authority for his
narrative, that very writer who had the greatest love for such subjects. Albert
of Aix details the adventures with the utmost fullness. The
knights surpass themselves; the princes are covered with glory ; the feeble and
unlucky succumb; the strong attain to honour and wealth: apd so it goes on in
endless detail, without however the idea of any plan. It was the chief object of William of Tyre to arrange bis work upon some
system. In the first place he shows how little feeling he had for romantic heroism, as be omits a number of the anecdotes of Albert of Aix,
with the remark that, considering the brevity
which he aimed at, it was impossible for him otherwise to get through the
endless materials. He connects together the thread of the narrative, which,
with his knowledge of the other authorities, could not be difficult, and thus
produces a whole, which, if we did not know its origin, might
be considered well arranged and rational enough. But
u
290 literature op the crusades.
with this order the whole freshness of the chivalrous spirit evaporated; it died oat with that freedom from plan from which it drew its life and
sustenance. It is still a question whether the Archbishop's rational history can maintain its ground against a picture
drawn from the original sources; how far also these authorities represent a
plan of proceedings, and whether they represent the plan
which William of Tyre describes.
The following remark seems not to be out of place here. William of Tyre
gives several accounts of the number of fighting-men in the contending armies,
differing from the authorities that have come down to us, and which he
therefore obtained from other quarters.40 In
the ' Gesta Francorum/ in Raymond and Albert, we likewise find other statements on the same subject. They sometimes agree with, sometimes vary
from, those given by William of Tyre. Where they vary, it is from a
difference of motive worth attention. In the original authorities the fact itself is treated as a matter of indifference, and the statements are mostly very loose. The interest to them
arose from a far different consideration
; namely, the power of the Lord, who
40 On tho whole of the first crusading army consult i. ii., extr.
i. iv. 12, and also concerning the number of troops at Jerusalem
and Ascalon.
WILLIAM OF TYRE.
291
gave the victory to the few over the many. As the power of the Lord was
everything, it necessarily followed that the real number of fighting-men was
quite unimportant.41
William of Tyre, however, did not take this view of the matter: he desired,
very naturally, to obtain a surer foundation for
his facts. It is to be regretted that he has not given us more frequent and
better-arranged statements. Some later passages raise doubts as to the correctness of the numbers in the first parts of his works. In the later portion he talks of a Turkish army of twenty thousand, or at most
forty thousand, men; and adds with emphasis,—"Dicebatur a seniori-bus
regni principibus, quod a primo Latinorum in Syriam introitu nunquam tantas
vidissent hostium copias."42
These accounts are evidently more reasonable than the enormous numbers given in the earlier books.
There is no question that the turn of William of Tyre's mind has
contributed materially to our knowledge, not only of ecclesiastical, but of temporal matters. The constitution of the kingdom, the
subject to which we now allude, is not in-
41 Fulcher, in the later portions of his work, gives this matter
another turn, and complains of the smallness of their number,
and how willingly they would have had larger armies.
« William of Tyre, xxii. 16: here it is 20,000. xx. 21, where
the same matter is mentioned, he gives 40,000 men.
u 2
292 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
deed treated with the same interest and detail as the history of the
Church. On the contrary, in a few passages only is anything directly relating
to it mentioned. But the whole book, springing from a soil politically prepared
for it, bears traces of its origin. It would be wrong to imagine
that we could treat of the Assizes of Jerusalem in a comprehensive manner without reference to William of Tyre. He does not
often deviate from the original authorities, but he clothes their dry and
meagre outlines with great variety of incident and
interesting personal details. This however more
properly applies to the history of the First Crusade.
Narrative of the First Crusade.
We have praised the talent displayed in the style of William of Tyre,
in which there is a union of good taste, vigour, and
lively perspicuity. We readily recognize these same merits in the original
works giving descriptions of the First Crusade. But the comparison with his
authorities renders a closer examination necessary. It is clear that he completely remoulds the form, if not the contents, of his originals.
This deserves praise; for much coarseness, and many discrepancies and
contradictions, vanish under a process which, out of such discordant materials,
produces a complete
WILLIAM OF TYRE.
293
whole. On the other hand, we must confess that, together with what is
objectionable, he destroys much that is significant,
and frequently substitutes for what was a vivid picture a commonplace narrative. He writes history with a skill and
liveliness that carry his readers away; but his predecessors, with greater
coarseness and less skill, have the art, although in another manner, of writing
both vividly and dramatically. Albert of Aix thus relates the march of the priest Gott-schalk through Hungary:—" Dum per aliquot dies morara
illuc [near Messburg] facerent et vagari cce-pissent; Bavari vero et Suevi,
gens animosa, et cae-teri fatui, modum potandi excederunt, pacem indic-tam
violarunt, Ungaris vinum, hordeum, et caetera ncccssaria paulatim
auferentes, ad ultimum oves et boves per agrum rapientes occiderunt,
resistentes quoque et excutere volentes peremerunt, caeteraque plurima
flagitia, quae omnia referre nequivimus, perpetrarunt, sicut gens rusticano
more infulsa, in-disciplinata et indomita. Juvenem
quendam Un-garum pro vilissima contentione palo per secreta naturae
transfixerunt in foro plateae." William of Tyre gives the following
version of this passage: —"Alimentorum abutentes opulentia et ebrie-tati
vacantes, ad infercndas enormes indigcnis se
contulcrunt injurias: ita ut praedas cxcrccrent,
294 LITERATURE OP THE CRUSADES.
venalia foris illata publicis
violenter diriperent et stragem in populo committerent, neglectis le-gibus
hospitalitatis. Commiserunt gravis in locia quam
plurimis, turpiaque nimis et relatione in-digna." It is clear that the attempt to condense his predecessor's narrative
was not the sole aim of William of Tyre. In Albert's account one image follows
another, and one fact explains the other. William of
Tyre, on the contrary, limits himself to a bare recital of the events, which he
might have represented in equal detail. While Albert, after his fashion, boasts
of the purple banners and the golden insignia, William of Tyre merely says, the army marched in great pomp from one place to another.
At Dorylaeum, says Fulcher, was Bishop Adhemar with four other bishops, beside many priests in white garments, who humbly
besought God for victory. Many went to them for confession, and princes were in the heat of the fight. William of Tyre describes it
thus:— " Dominus vero Podiensis cum multis ejusdem officii comministris populos admonent, hortantur prin-cipes, ne manus
remittant, sed certi de victoria di-vinitus conferenda, interemtorum sanguinem ulcis-cantur, et de fidelium strage fidei hostes et
nominis Christiani non patiantur diutius gloriari."
Here there is no abridgment; on the contrary,
WILLIAM OF TYRE.
295
William of Tyre is more detailed than Fulcher, but rhetorical amplification takes the place of simple reality. We may
remark incidentally that the fact differs materially from that mentioned by
Fulcher, and exactly as we should have expected from our previous observations.
While Fulcher gives us a picture of the battle, in which confusion
reigned,—the priests in anguish and terror on their knees, people coming to
them in the midst of the turmoil for absolution, and the like,—William represents the clergy solemnly assembled, as it were, in order of battle, headed by their chief; and in a becoming state of enthusiasm urging
on the warriors to do battle for the Lord.
A comparison with any of his authorities gives similar results. Raymond
of Agiles, who troubles himself little with artistic composition, at the close of his introduction begins his narrative thus : —" So the
Count of Toulouse and Bishop Adhe-mar marched through Slavonia and had many difficulties to encounter in the way, especially from .the winter season.
Slavonia is a wild, pathless, and mountainous country. For the space of
three weeks we saw neither bird nor beast." He then observes how the wild
inhabitants molested them, killing many stragglers, and easily evading pursuit
by flying into the mountains. He adds,
296 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
" I will not omit one glorious act of the Count," and relates
with some detail the success of an ambush for the natives devised by
Raymond. " Above all," says he, " it is impossible to narrate
the deeds then performed by the Count. We were forty days in Slavonia,
when the fog was so dense that we could actually grasp and handle it. All this
time the Count was not idle one moment; he was the first to advance and the
last to retreat, and remained armed day and night, until
he had led the army through, without any serious
loss." Here we at once recognize the eye-witness, who conveys to us the
impressions he himself felt. Rough as are his forms of speech, he transports us
at once into his own position and his own feelings. We grope our way with him through the mist and over the mountain-passes, and exult
over a general by whose skill and vigour the army was saved.
Whilst this author presents the event itself, William of Tyre gives a
history of it. He first relates the departure of the Count,
and gives an account of his forces; then passing to Slavonia, he collects all
the topographical notices scattered through the work of Raymond of Agiles, into
the framework, as it were, of a quiet description. The army reaches its
destination after great difficulties, throughout which
it was admirably protected by
WILLIAM OF TYRE.
297
the Count. William of Tyre ends without having omitted a single fact or
description; but likewise without having succeeded in one instance in giving
the impression of his original. It must be admitted that be exhibits the lively
sympathy with his subject in
general which is produced by a warm patriotism; but in the single statements of
these early events he shows more interest in the composition
of his history than in the history itself.
This continues into the middle of the book. The account of the defeat of Raymond of Antioch, in the year 1119, given by
the Chancellor Gauthier and followed by William of Tyre, exhibits the same striving after historical skill, and the same want of
simplicity of apprehension. There is no question that, with a feeling for method and clearness, William of Tyre omits much that is foreign to
the matter; the arrangement and connection of the whole are much more
distinct than in Gauthier. But in spite of these advantages his narrative has
not the character of the original. His picture is correctly drawn, but
its colouring is dull and differs from the original. His ruling passion is
unity of design. He reduces all the inequalities of the originals to one
uniform measure. By these means a broad and harmonious whole is indeed obtained, but all appearance of real life is de
298 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
stroyed, and an analysis of his materials is rendered
We recognize the same method of proceeding on another subject. William
of Tyre, in the first books of his history, quotes a number of
letters, documents, speeches, and treatises, copied,
it would appear and has been frequently believed, from authentic sources.*8 I
believe them indeed to be all a pure invention of the Archbishop, unsupported
by any earlier tradition. Such are, for instance, at the
very beginning, the negotiations of Peter the Hermit with the Patriarch of
Jerusalem. We do not find them in this form in.any of the original authorities
known to us. We can indeed trace their origin to Albert of Aix, although his narrative differs materially. I must maintain the same
with regard to a thing which has been more generally
Accepted, the speech of Urban II. at Clermont.44 Frequently as this has been quoted as a genuine document, I neither see
external evidence of its authenticity,
nor do the contents appear consonant to the spirit of those times. In this
elaborate document, full of elegance and learning,
there is no
43 On the strength of his assertions,
the Hist. Litt.
de la France,
viii. 600, considers
Godfrey as the author of particular
letters
to the French historians. Examples of such a use in this sense are to be frequently found.
41 Lib. i. c. 15.
impossible.
WILLIAM OF TIRE. 299
trace of the feeling dominant at that time, namely,
boundless and extravagant fanaticism. In no way does it differ, either in
thought or expression, from the treatment in the rest of William of Tyre's
book. This may be said of other matters, to which we shall have to allude.
I pass over the speeches and letters interchanged between Duke Godfrey and King Kalraa-rri, briefly to consider
the more important negotiations with the Emperor Alexius.
There is merely a reference to the mission to Godfrey, given word for word from
Albert's narrative; on the other hand, the requisition of Bohemund
to make war upon Alexius, and Godfrey's refusal, is told in
extenso, and in William of Tyre's most elaborate style.46 But
the conviction is forced upon us that we have before us an amplification of the
letters given by Albert of Aix, exactly as we have in# cap. xi. of the
curt speeches of the Emperor to Godfrey.46 The
connection may appear more doubtful in the narrative of the embassy
of the Emperor to Bohemond, as well as in that to the Count of Toulouse, which are not to be found in his authorities
for those times, Baldrich47 and
Raymond of Toulouse.48 I have no doubt that this also was a
45 Lib. ii. c. 6,10.—Albert, ii. 7,14
46 Albert, c. 16. 47 Baldr. p. 93.
48 Baymond, p. 140.—William of Tyre, ii. o. 13-16,18.
800 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
pure invention of William of Tyre. The contents of the two letters are
of the most general kind; their form is precisely that used by the Archbishop,
and not at all like the Greek, as we may see in various passages of Anna
Comnena. Radulf proceeds in a similar manner: he likewise introduces
in a direct speech the embassy to Bohemund, but does not attempt to conceal his own invention.
A further example, still more characteristic of William of Tyre, is to
be found in the negotiations about Nicaea. I must here premise, as well known, that Alexius with great skill forced the
garrison of the town to a compromise, without any reference to the Crusaders,
and took possession of the place, without allowing them to have any part in the
capture. In William of Tyre's narrative, Tatikios took possession
of the town, which, it is said, the princes did not resent, as they would not
otherwise have been able to remain. He lets this opinion escape in a letter
addressed to Alexius; wherein the princes request the Emperor to send them a sufficient garrison, foreseeing that they would soon be
forced to break up their quarters.49 We
now know for certain that they were exceedingly embittered by the loss of such
a booty; that they refused to hold intercourse with 49 Lib. iii. c. 11.
WILLIAM OF TYRE.
301
the Emperor, and were only induced by urgent entreaty to open fresh
negotiations. We know further that the Greek troops in Nicaea were quite
numerous enough to defend the place, strong as it was, even against the
Crusaders themselves. There could be no meaning therefore in the request for
reinforcements. William of Tyre's intention seems to me clear enough; he
neither wished to mix himself up with the passionate and
vague questions of that period, nor did he believe (at all events he had no
wish to relate) the intrigues of the Emperor, the lust
for plunder of the princes, nor to touch on the various negotiations that
passed. He had in his mind the picture of two great and admirably constituted
Powers, and he represents their negotiations in the manner which seemed to him fitting. In a passage that follows immediately
afterwards, it is stated, " In pactorum serie quae inter eos inita
fuerant, haec formula dicebatur in-terserta; quod si aliquara de urbibus,"
etc.60 This
is in fact simply a new version of Albert's statement,
that the princes had promised to restore the towns, lands, and villages;61 the
decision as to the plunder is of course added.
A similar
50 Lib. iii. c. 12.
51 " Promiserunt enim juramento, nihil de regno imperatoris,
non castra non civitates nisi de ejus voluntate seu dono retinere."
—Albert, ii. 28.
302 literature of the crusades.
proceeding is obvious (lib. vi c. 15) in the account
of
the embassy of Peter and Herluin to Kerboga.
He
adopts Fulcher's account of the message with which the emissaries were entrusted, and Baldric's for the negotiations with the heathen emir.
In
both cases everything rough and uncourtly is excluded; they are made to discourse in the most diplomatic manner, and not with the wild seal of lawless warriors fighting for religion's sake.52 And so it is in all cases. I consider none of these statements as really original, or indeed as having any claim to be reckoned so. The first that I find trustworthy is the letter of Dagobert to Bohemund, in which instance there is no reason to doubt the express statement of William of Tyre.53
I have purposely dwelt somewhat at length upon this point, partly on
account of the general acceptance which these representations
have obtained, partly of the importance of the matter in
forming a judgment on William of Tyre. Were the facts authentic, we must accept
the Archbishop as an original authority, and a very important one. But now they
serve admirably to define the position which he holds in relation to the original authorities.
u Fulcher, p. 393. Baldrich's paraphrase is still stronger (p.
119). The identity is too manifest to make any quotation necessary.
William of Tyre, vi. 15.
*» William of Tyre, x. 4
WILLIAM OF TYRE.
303
We see how the general state of affairs, William's own position and
modes of thought, and the manner in which he acquired and dealt with his
materials, are dependent on each other. Another point remains, the decision of which must determine the literary position of his history. Without an examination
of his critical method, our inquiry into the purpose and practical application
of his history would be useless.
We have already suggested, that William of Tyre abstained from
incorporating Arabic narratives into his work, as resting on such
totally different grounds from those of Christian writers. The discrepancy
between his Christian authorities apparently did not strike him; it is true he
corrects occasional errors, but he never rises to a view of the whole. There are indeed traces of such an attempt, but it soon becomes
evident that it is the result of an external influence. The second book
contains the march of the separate bodies of troops through the Greek Empire.
He first lays Albert of Aix under contribution, for the narrative of the
march of the Lorrainers; he refers for Bohemund's advance
to the ' Gesta Francorum' or to Baldrich; for that of Raymond of Toulouse to
Raymond of Agiles; and lastly, he takes from Fulcher of Chartres his account of
the march of the Northern French.
304 LITERATURE OP THE CRUSADES.
He thus always goes to the best authority—i countryman or a personal
companion—for his account of each Prince. It ought not
to affect our judgment, that he also inserts from other
quarters much that is erroneous, and for which there is no authority.64 This
is unavoidable from the nature of such traditions. But this
circumstance is conclusive, that he differs widely from the unhis-torical
Albert of Aix, and that he aims at preserving
the historical value of his narrative, by divesting
it of all legendary forms.
If we remember his personal character, and how foreign to his sober and
well-regulated mind were all miracles and adventures, all poetry, whether
religious or secular, it will appear more surprising that
he should place any reliance on Albert of Aix, than that he should alter his
narrative. On the other hand, if his scepticism was so strong as to lead him to
reject it, he could easily throw out its poetical elements, and give to the dry residuum an historical character. But after he had
stripped the political and military parts of all adventure, and substituted
hierarchical forms for mystical excite-
44 Such are to be found at pp. 705, 708, 710; how Bohemund
has some spies roasted; Baji-Sijan suspects Firuz ; Tancred and
Robert of Flanders storm Antioch; how Raymond of Toulouse,
even before the capture of the city, protests against Bohemund's
assumption of its government.
WILLIAM OF TIKE.
305
ment, there still remained traces of the legendary origin of his
history, in the contradictions, internal and external, which it contains, and
the fables which are at variance with reason and experience. If William of Tyre
were freed from these objections, his work would be complete and his
task fulfilled. But on comparing it with some of the passages quoted in our
criticism of Albert of Aix, we perceive how little he kept this
object in view.
Albert places the peace between Godfrey and Alexius in January, 1097, and shortly afterwards mentions it as having been signed about
Christmas, 1096. William of Tyre dismisses the last statement altogether, and confirms the first from other sources. In other
respects he follows Albert word for word.55 The
latter describes the battle of Dory-laeum, with a
great display of poetical but useless detail. The distrust inspired by such a
mode of writing is confirmed by a comparison of the statement with the original authorities. William of Tyre uses them all
indiscriminately. He omits all Albert's poetical forms, and comments on the discrepancies of his statements, without expressing any scepticism concerning
the narrative as a whole. He omits whatever bears clear evidence of a fabulous origin,-—whatever is in obvious contradiction
" William of Tyre, ii. 10-13.
X
306 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
to the original authorities,—and places side by side two reports of the
same occurrence, as if they related to different events.66 What
remains after this process he adds to the narrative of the original
authorities, not perceiving that he has only saved a dead and worthless mass.
Albert first leads Prince Sweyn of Denmark to Nicaea, then back again
to Constantinople, and thence to his defeat by Solyman. William of
Tyre at once copies the whole story, only altering one point,—the absurd
journey back to Constantinople.57
Duke Godfrey, according to Albert, is wounded in a fight with a bear
near Antiochetta, and is in consequence confined to
his bed for many months. But immediately after, we find him engaged in fierce
battles, lending the army, and, clad in armour and with flying banners,
breaking the ranks of the heathen host. William of Tyre unhesitatingly copies
the one occurrence from Albert, but he omits the other.
Here, as in other places, the want of sense in the pussage made him hesitate to
admit it. But he had no doubt as to the general narrative, tht whole of which
was open to suspicion.
He proceeds in this/uanner throughout the book
All that Albert tells, without rhyme or reason, ol
" William of Tyre, iii. 13,15.
Id., v. 20.
I
WILLIAM OP TYRE. 807
the Turkish affairs, William of Tyre weeds out, yet he cannot
emancipate himself from the influence of these
reports on other facts. We have before quoted similar proofs of his manner of
dealing with ' the legend of Peter the Hermit; how in the account of the embassy to Kerboga he mixes fable and history, and
endeavours to give to Albert's narrative of the siege
of Antioch an air of historical truth. His criticism is in the main
conservative, but without any valid reason: out of two discrepant accounts he endeavours to make one true one, by taking away here
and adding there, until the angles are smoothed down and
a flat but insipid polish is attained. William of Tyre was quite conscious of this in his later books, but only when Albert's deviations
touched him on the tenderest point. He makes use of Albert in the manner I have
described, until the foundation of the kingdom of Jerusalem. He then
leaves him, and never refers to him again. He does not allude to the cause of
this sudden mistrust, but I believe it is attributable to Albert's account of
the Patriarch Dagobert and Arnulf. We have shown the strongly-marked contradiction that appears between these two
authors, and the passion with which William of Tyre devoted himself to that
portion of his narrative. We cannot therefore wonder that he subsequently
wholly rex 2
308 LITERATURE OF THE CRU8ADE8.
jectcd an authority which threatened to undermine his historical faith.
It is to be regretted that he did not apply the conviction thus forced
upon him to his treatment ol the earlier part of his history. We hesitate not
ta assert, that it is solely owing to his work that the
prestige of legends in this portion of history has endured for so many
centuries. The distrust whick must have arisen, had the original forms of the
legends been preserved, vanished before the historical
air he imparted to them. The idea of the leadership of Godfrey of Bouillon, miraculous in its origin and in all its
results, and terminated by a marvellous death, would not have satisfied mart
minds long. William of Tyre deals with the whok cycle of the traditions as he
does with individual cases. He passes over in silence the divine interposition, and the events in which it was manifested; but he accepts all
the glory ascribed to Godfrey d Bouillon, and creates the idea of his character
whicl has remained in force even to this day. According to this idea,
Godfrey was the leader of the Cru sades neither by the express choice of man,
nor bj the miraculous dispensation of God; but his wis dom, strength,
righteousness, and his other virtues gradually raised him to the highest place,—a vie^ which a sceptical age readily accepted. William c
WILLIAM OF TYRE.
309
Tyre was regarded as an original authority, and no one thought of
disputing his claim to that character. His representation was taken
to be the true one. The original legend, scattered far
and wide, and with no great name to guarantee its truth, fell into oblivion, or
its splendours and its marvels only served to embellish and magnify the events
that actually occurred. Men spoke of the strong enthusiasm, of the passion for miracles of that age, in which embellishments
to truth were natural enough. But no one imagined that these very embellishments were the real originals, and that what was supposed to be
the truth was only a diluted reproduction of them.
Unless I greatly err, the positive nature of William of Tyre's book, concerning the First Crusade,
is characterized in the foregoing description. William of Tyre represents a
phase which, in the literature of every nation, immediately succeeds the development of legendary tales: the distinction
between historical and poetical creations disappears;
the writer attempts to unite the former with the latter. He does not perceive
that the truth of the one and the poetry of the other are thus lost; he proceeds with his work with talent and vigour, and it bears the impress of
his character.
It is true that this view lowers his repu
810 LITERATURE OP THE cru8ade8.
tation for trustworthiness: we divide his work into two equal portions,
one of which is admirable; the other, as concerns its contents, is totally
valueless as an original authority. It was the more necessary to prove the unity of these two portions, from the personal character of the author. The position he has chosen as
mediator between legend and history is the natural consequence of that character. How much he sacrificed to such a mode of treating his materials is
evident enough, and every reader will doubtless resort, if he can, to
the original sources.
311
CHAPTER IV.
EPOCHS OF A LATER LITERATURE.
Whether we investigate each single work, or take a general survey of
the literature subsequent to William of Tyre, two
points have to be considered: first, those originals
which at that period exercised a predominant influence;
and next, the position of the writers with regard to the events which they were
about to describe. It will suffice here to recognize and to attest the character and the turning-point of the different epochs. Our space will not
allow us to enter into the subject with the fullness required by biographical
or critical examination. In fulfilling these requirements, the object appears
to be attained, of assigning the just position, according to the
materials, to later additions and emendations. The selection of the materials
that have come down to us has been
312 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES. j
i
made with this view. Provided the results of the examples 1 have adduced are not weakened by some j authority which I have overlooked, I am content not to have passed over any of the more important, or omitted any of the most striking points of the narratives. The great mass of monographs,
which
might have explained many peculiarities,
have
been left unnoticed. The same applies to all the histories of a purely national or patriotic tendency, such as almost every nation of Europe possesses on the subject of the Crusades. Such an inquiry would require a special work, and would
afford
little available for our purpose.
We shall perceive a similarity of proceeding
in
this province of history when treated as a whole, as when we examined the views of contemporary authors. Among the latter I include the original authorities, the Legends, and William of Tyre. Even in the literature of a later period, the views contained in these three sources of information seemed for a time different; without question,
at
the beginning, the influence of the original authorities preponderated; which they owed to their
greater
circulation, if not to the talent of the writers. The Legends, by blending poetry with history,
combine the attractions of both. William of Tyre was read, but it was only after the lapse of a
EPOCH8 OF A LATER LITERATURE. 813
long period that his account of these events became extensively known.
Although, under these circumstances, the views taken of persons
and of events varied, still, on the whole, the judgment as to the general importance and the particular details of the Crusades
remained fixed. The ecclesiastical point of view predominated, and only on
trifling points assumed a more chivalrous or mystical colouring. But in a
second period, this state of opinion completely changed: William of Tyre
becomes the exclusive authority. In process of time, the original sources are more consulted, though but few notices from them are
incorporated into the groundwork of the Archbishop's narrative.
The glory of Peter the Hermit and Godfrey of Bouillon, ascribed
to them by William of Tyre, is celebrated in proportion
as the ecclesiastical, poetical, or patriotic interest prevails. Even the
negative philosophy of the eighteenth century leaves the facts untouched,
however much it busied itself with the motives and the
consequences of the Crusades. Lastly, the tendency of modern literature has
been to restore them on all points to their old position.
I will here mention—chiefly for the sake of the place where it was
written—a short history
814 . LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
of the Crusades, compiled in 1218 by a certain Scholasticus Oliver.1 In
the camp before Damietta, on the very spot Where but a few years before William
of Tyre wrote and acted, Oliver merely employed himself in condensing
Fulcher of Chartres, taking probably such extracts as
suited his purpose from the 4
Gesta Francorum/ I have not met with any later mention of this essay.
But the work of Vincent, Bishop of Beauvais, hgsattracted great attention, and had a wide circulation, although his * Mirror of
History' gives no detailed narrative of the First Crusade.2 It
is a mere compilation, deficient in critical and descriptive
power. The beginning—up to the words " Secundum bellum fuit Nicaeae "—is copied from Siegbert of Gembloux, and the commencement of Baldrich
is repeated. Baldrich remains his leading authority, occasional extracts
from Siegbert and William of Malmesbury being added. Insignificant as the work is, the great reputation in which
Vincent of Beauvais was held in the Middle Ages
1 Oliv. Schol. Historia Begum Terra
Sancte, quam in obsi-diono Damiatw apud uEgyptum compilavit, in Eccard. Corpus
Hist. M. M . t.
ii.
2 Vine. Bellov. Spec. Hist. xxv. 96.
For the account of the several editions see Ebert, Bibl. Lexicon,
s. v. Michaud, Bibl. iii. 323, gives a detailed notice of the history of the
Crusades. Vincent died in 1264. *
VINCENT, BISHOP OF BEAUVAIS* 315
caused it to be much used, partly as sole authority, partly mixed with others. The translator of Bern-hard, of whom we shall
treat in another place, quotes him among his authorities. Archbishop Antoninus
somewhat later quotes him also, together with some passages from William of
Tyre. Hermann Corner has scarcely any other authority for his
knowledge of the First Crusade: he includes in his work the narrative of the '
Mirror of History/ with all its quotations.3 The
great Belgian Chronicle does exactly the same, only that it contains the
history of Gulfer and his lion,4
first mentioned, I believe, by Godfrey Vos. He derives also from Raymond (whom
he calls Martin Agiles) an account of the Holy Lance, and of the transmission
of letters by pigeons captured near Caesarea.6
In Germany the narrative of Eckhardt, which we
have described as being current in the twelfth century, is occasionally met
with in the thirteenth. The Luneburg Chronicle, which ends with the year 1285,
gives it at length. The chronicle of the priest Andreas Kraft, of Ratisbon,6
gives a second copy of it, equally diffuse. Robert, Baldrich, and Siegbert are the authorities of Alberich's
3 Herm. Com. in Eccard. Corpus, t. ii. p. 630.
♦In Labbe*, Nova Bibl. t. ii. p. 292.
* Pistorius, Script, vi. 129.
8 Both are in the first volume of Eccard. Corpus Hist. M. Mvi.
316 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
narrative, to which some passages from William of Tyre and the lost
work of Guy of Chalons have been added.7
In the beginning of the fourteenth century we meet in England with a
compilation from Siegbert and the monk Robert, in the ' Flores Historiarum,' by
Matthew of Westminster, who continued this work down to the year 1307. The
narrative is remarkably short, but
the eulogy of the Duke of Normandy by Robert is not omitted (p. 40, apud Bongars).8
Again it is Siegbert, with some additional particulars from the ' Gesta' or the copyers of that work, who has furnished
John of Ypres with materials for his narrative of
the Crusades.9 John
of Ypres died in 1383, and his Chronicle reaches from the year 590 to 1294.
William of Tyre is his authority for some of the dates, and for
the incident of the. refusal of Godfrey to wear the golden crown at Jerusalem.
Gobelin Persona, who continued his Cosmodro-^
mium to the year 1418, gives only a summary account of the Crusades, and does
not refer spe-
7 Alberici Chron. ad a. 1096. The
article in Michaud's Biblio-theque gives a more detailed account.
8 The whole is copied word for word
in Walsingham's * Hy-podigma NeustriaV which ended in
1417. (Camden, p. 441.)
9 Chron. S. Bertini, in Martene,
Thesaurus, t. iii. p. 593.
JOHN OF TP RE 8 AND OTHERS. 317
cially to any original authority. The communication by means of pigeons, already mentioned, from Caesarea, is copied
word for word from Raymond of Agiles (p. 173, apud Bongars).10
Blondus, in the third and fourth book of his second
Decade, takes a wider circuit; his object is not only to
mention, but to describe the Crusade, He had access to Andreas Dandolo, to
William of Tyre, and, apparently, to the French text of Bern-hard ;
nevertheless he invariably follows Robert the Monk, to whom he frequently
alludes.11 He
copies from him the good and bad indiscriminately, and
by his confused way of writing spoils much that was valuable in the work of
Robert the Monk.13 Moreover his style is without colour, and his narra. tive without life.
The whole composition, like all that this author has left,
is of inferior value.
Platina, who has interpolated into the Lives of Urban II. and Paschal
II. a narrative of the First Crusade, does not rank much higher.13 Robert the Monk serves also as the groundwork
10 Meibom, Script, t. i. p. 62.
11 L. iv. " In Venetorum monumentis invenio (Andr. Dand. in
Muratori Script, xii. p. 266). Fatetur ingenue Robertas S. Be-migii monachus, quo h®c certiora sumuntur, fatetur Guilielmus
et ipse scriptor Gallicus," etc.
13 Compare the occurrences in Constantinople and what is said
of Baldwin's rule in Tarsus.
B In the 4 Yit» Pontincum/
818 LITERATURE OF THE CRU8ADR8.
to Platina, as is evident from a cursory comparison.14 The
account of Godfrey's humility at the
Holy Sepulchre is the only passage taken from William of Tyre. But, beside
copying the blunders of others, Platina has many of his
own.u His
style is somewhat more polished than that of Blondus, and the whole book less
pretentions and shorter. Nevertheless the general tendency is the same; the religious character and influence of the Crusades is the central idea;
but there is no special mention either of Peter the
Hermit and his visions, nor of the mystic or human superiority of Duke Godfrey.
On a general view of these writers, we find some departure from the original authorities, but they are still current until
the end of the fifteenth century. Eckhardt and Siegbert are most frequently quoted. Their statements from the 9
Gesta' come down to us chiefly in the forms given to them by Baldrich or Robert; in the latter, mixed with some portions of oral tradition.
Fragments from William of Tyre are here and there intro-
14 There can be no doubt that the * Gesta/ and not Albert, is the latest authority. We may recognize Robert in the manner
in which Hugo and Godfrey are glorified at Dorylceum, and in
which Pyrrhus admires Bohemund's great qualities.
16 The statement that Godfrey and his brother Baldwin were the first to enter Jerusalem.
LEGENDS OF THE CRUSADES. 319
duced, but he exercises no influence in enlarging the view of the
subject as a whole; this indeed is entirely lost sight of. The annals are
short, and display great poverty of expression. Almost the only idea of any
importance is, the recognition of the Pope as the originator and active
leader of the general religious movement.
At the same time a mode of treating these events, entirely at variance
with that which we have been considering, found remarkable sympathy and furtherance. I have already alluded to the Legends of the Crusades, at
first fostered unconsciously by the national spirit of the people, and falling
by degrees into the hands of the poets, who worked them up into artistic forms.
Had a complete separation of literature from actual life been then effected, we might have omitted all allusion to this branch of the
history of literature. But the poets of the romances to which we refer had no
idea of being mere inventors, or of quitting the
interest which attaches to the incidents of actual life, for a wider and more arduous range. " We could not understand the
existence of these romances," says Fauriel, speaking of the poems of
the Carlovingian period16,
" if we sup-
16 Revue des Deux Mondes, vii. 639, 564.
320 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
posed that they were invented exactly as they do* | are, and, as a connected whole, three hundred yen! after the events they celebrate. We can only co» ' prehcnd them regarded as the expression of a Bwk and unbtoken tradition." The same may be sad of the romances of the Crusades; they also urate
the
barons to listen to captivating stories and truthful songs; they also relate actual events, "naft histoire, haute histoire." The powerful effect produced by this union of poetry with tradition meito
our
attention.
I must, however, confine myself to little mat than titles of books and brief notices of their contents. None of the romances to which I now refer have ever been printed in a complete form; they come down to us in extracts. The historical
narratives founded upon them are contained in obsolete editions. In most cases the mere mention of the title will suffice to justify the place we assign
to it
in the collection.
In characterizing the contemporaneous legends,
we
traced the numerous forms under which they brought individual facts before our eyes; at the same time we noticed one ruling idea which pervades them; namely, the poetical
glorification of Duke Godfrey as the leader chosen by God for this enterprise; and we mentioned the poems of Gandor
LEGENDS.
321
of Douay and others, in which this subject assumed an artistic form. We
now see that the preference visible in the literature of the thirteenth,
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries for epic tales of chivalry, extended to the subject of the Crusades. The north of France was
especially the land of poetry on the Crusades; though traces of the same are
also found in Germany, Holland, England, and Italy. The mode of development
followed the usual course. In the thirteenth century the poetical feeling
was stronger, and the epos found expression in metrical forms. After the
fourteenth century, measure and rhythm gave way to a diffuse romantic prose; belief in the truth of the narrative increased; while the poetic fictions were so mingled with the most varied historical statements, that
cultivated readers were unable to distinguish poetry from history.
The oldest poetical reproduction of the subject known to me, after the
poem of Gandor, is by a German of great celebrity. The
Imperial library at Vienna possesses an epic by Wolfram of Eschen-bach, on the
expedition to the Holy Land, under Godfrey pf Bouillon; to which is appended a
narrative of the Syrian campaign until 1227.17
Gandor's * Knight of the Swan' was translated into
prose in the fourteenth century, and many ex-
v Lambecii Common tar. de Bibl. Caesar, ii. 911: ed. Koilar.
T
822 LITERATURE OP THE CRUSADES.
tracts from it have been published.18 It is manifest
that, in the process of transmission, numerous; alterations and
additions were made ; religious ei-citement, which was not remarkable even in
GaD-clor, has altogether vanished, and is replaced by i hurried series of
adventures. I pass over the mythi-. cal account of the grandfather of Godfrey of Bouillon, from whom the poem takes its
name, and wi : select
a few passages from the history of the Crusades itself.
The scene is laid at Mecca, where the tomb of the god Mahound floats in
the air: the heathen are assembled, the Sultan of Persia,
the great Emir Corbara, and many other kings around them. The , mother of
Corbara, Calabre the learned, arrives, and prophesies the fall of Jerusalem by
the instrumentality of Godfrey and his
brothers. This story had already been
current among those * who took a part in the
Crusades. The ' Gesta Francorum*
treats of it at some length. On this
announcement Cornumarant goes to Europe in disguise, in order to kill the three
brothers. He is recognized, and states
his readiness to do homage to the Duke, whose high destiny fills him
with reverence. The Duke, in order completely to dazzle the Turk, summons all the bishops to his reception.
To enhance
18 Melanges tire's d'une grande Bibliotheque, vi. 4.
LEGENDS.
323
his dignity, the princes of Artois, Flanders, the Palatinate, and of
Hainault, represent themselves as the officers of his Court. Godfrey of
Bouillon here announces his intention of fulfilling the prophecy, and the
princes determine to place themselves under his guidance. What had begun
merely as a show became a reality: the Pope, the Emperor, and King Philip of
France, gave in their adhesion; but before they started on the
expedition, the Duke was obliged, in single combat, to make good his claim to
Lorraine, and put his rival, here called Arnulf, to death. At length Peter
of Amiens arrives from Rome to preach the Crusade, and from that point we find
ourselves on the well-known ground of Albert of Aix or of William of Tyre.
In the end Godfrey of Bouillon, as lord of Jerusalem, marries the
beautiful Florie, sister of Corbara, and daughter
of the learned Calabre of Holofernia.
I think these extracts will confirm the judgment I have pronounced; but
in those times the world was satisfied with such absurd fables, which were reproduced in great numbers until the middle of the
fifteenth century. An old catalogue of Parisian
manuscripts gives no less than fifteen of these chronicles extant.19 '
Godeffroy de Billon de la Con-
19 In the Hist, de l'Acadlmie Eoyale, i. 314: among these
fifteen, however, the Chevalier dn Cygne might have been in-
v 2
824 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
queste d'Oultremer/ or with some such titkjtitj of them are " ryme" but are also extant in a pros ? version; the rest appear to be all in
prose. Tb«;: the contents do not differ in any important point' j from the narrative
I have described, appears to k beyond a doubt, both from the pre-eminence gives
to Godfrey, and from the positive assertions of tk *
best-informed writers.20
These histories soon attained to a wide-spre* popularity.21 *
Les Faits et les Gestes du preux Go-deffroy de Bouillon1 were
known in all countries In France, a work of N. Chrestien on this subjed was printed in 1499. Le Noir translated the Lato work of ' Desrey de
Troyes' in 1511 ; and in 15S6 that work went through a second edition. In Itah? the
young Ariosto translated one of these romance! under the title of ' Goffredo
Bajone ;'2a and in 14S1 William Caxton gave an English version
of this or some similar work. A Dutch
version appeared;
eluded. The statements in the Melanges, vi. 1, are not at say
rate correct.
80 Melanges, i. c.
81 The following notices are taken from Ebert's Bibliogr.
Lexicon, article " Godefroy de Bouillon." Gorres* introductaot
to the ' Lohengrin,' p. 76, mentions a Godfrey of Prabant, quoted
by Piitrich, p. 18, and an Icelandic Godfreysaga; nererthelfla the other quotations of the passages (concerning Demy sad
Ariosto) are too incorrect for me to rely on his statement.
n Fernow, Life of Ariosto, p. 67.
LEGENDS.
325
at Haarlem about I486; and a German one was printed at Augsburg in
1502.
This suffices to show the tenacity of the belief
that Godfrey was the real leader of the Crusade,— a belief that existed long
after William of Tyre had become the chief authority among the learned. Even to
this day, the idea of Godfrey's superiority to the other Crusaders is only driven out of men's minds by the weight of authority, and
then only for the moment.
The service rendered by William of Tyre and his followers to historical
truth appears very great, in comparison with tjje writers we have mentioned.
Until the time arrived for subjecting the original
authorities to the test of a searching criticism, William of Tyre and his
followers gave currency to statements which had at any rate an air of probability and of historical research. The first labourers in this field, though superior in some respects to many of their successors, yet furnish little to a knowledge
of the First Crusade, and form no epoch; I shall therefore notice them briefly.
Jacob de Vitry, afterwards Cardinal and Bishop of Tusculum, wrote
before the year 1240 a connected history of the kingdom of
Jerusalem, tbken entirely from William of Tyre.28 His work justly
9 Historia Hierosolymitana, in Bongars, i. 1047. He makes
use of William of Tyre from i. 15.
326 litkratcre OF THE CIUiAMJ.
i
enjoys a high reputation, not on acccwEt
of J: historical narrative, which has no critical
nat, but from the numerous topographical and sas:-| cal statements which
form the larger portion d m; compilation. Towards the close of the
same tury the Venetian Marino Sanuto borrowed
inn hiiri the historical information required for hs *
tuarkablc book the 6 Secreta Fideliam Crack."1*
Shortly after Jacob de Vitry had published b compilation, William of
Tyre again appears as tk chief authority of a long and popular
narratnv* the Crusades. Matthew Paris, in his ' Historia A* glia: Major/ copied
almost entirely from Willan of Tyre, adding various notices from William d
Mulincsbury, or from the * Gesta/25 At the same time his notions of critical examination or skilful compilation are but faint. In many cases he confuses
time ami place, simply from being nnable to arrange well-authenticated facts in
a connected narrative.-8
I may also here call attention to a passage in Petrarch's treatise on the ' Vita Solitaria' (book ii. sec. 4, c. 1, 2). The earnestness
with which, even in his poetical works, Petrarch endeavoured
*
24 In Bongars, ii. 130. 24 Historia, p. 22.
36 Compare the events in
Constantinople and the occurrences
in Cilicia and Cappadocia.
PETRARCH.
327
i to excite men's minds to a new Crusade, is well I known.27 The
passage to which I allude, in praise t of
Peter the Hermit, has the same object, and we instantly recognize the influence
of William of Tyre, whose tenth and twelfth chapters are
borrowed nearly word for word. Petrarch then proceeds:— " I need not write
further on this subject, as the matter is made public in two goodly volumes,
written in the vulgar tongue (sermone vulgari),
and
in a tolerable style. I see on this point the minds
of their authors moved in different directions/ ' etc. It would have been
curious to examine this difference of their opinions,
but I have failed even to discover to what Italian work Petrarch alludes.
In the second half of the thirteenth century the
Treasurer Bernhard—an author of whom we know nothing beyond his name—translated
the whole work of William of Tyre into French, and brought down the narrative
to the departure of the Emperor Frederick II. The book had been lost until a few years ago, when Michaud discovered a manuscript
copy in Paris, and published ample extracts in his * Bibliotheque des
Croisades/28 from
which however nothing is to be learned beyond the
57 Canzone 5, Sonetto 107.
28 Bibliotheque des Croisades, ii. 555.
32S literature of the CKiAML
identity of these narratives, as far as coacag a first half, which is taken from Wtffiam of Its. About the year 1320, a Dominican of the vmti Pepin of Bologna made a Latin Tersaon of
Ben-hards work,2'' in
which the author allowed hires much latitude, and made alterations and addiooa
\ from Vincent of Beauvais Singularly
cnooai, [ the vision of Peter the Hermit was passed orerii complete silence. !
From the same materials, but with a modi wanner
sentiment, the Archbishop Antonine of Flo- . renec compiled, about the year
1450, that portion 1 of
his 4 Suinnia Ilistorialis' which treats of the history
of the First Crusade.31 With the exception of Home Htutcmcnts taken from Vincent of Beauvais, William of Tyre is his chief
authority. In the words of the
introduction we may trace the influence of the legends. Jerusalem was
delivered under the leadership of Godfrey of Bouillon, who, together with his
brothers Baldwin and Eustace, fought against the Turks with
marvellous fortitude. William of Tyre, with some
exaggerations as to re" In Muratori Script, vii. p.
663.
10 I In makcM a froo compilation from letters and
speeches.
Cap.
10,11, 13; c. 22: the Greek emperor is caUed Romania Diogtmoi. Cap. 25 :
Baldwin of Tarsus is not mentioned. Cap. 96: a free narrative of the events at
Edessa, etc. Some passages art taken from Vincent of Beauvais,
c. 8, 9, 78, 80.
" Pars ii. p. 665.
BENEDICTU8 ACCOLTI.
329
ligious sentiment, is the main foundation of the work. Although there
is a total want of critical investigation and narrative power, the book has
been largely used and quoted by later authors.
Without comparison, a work of much greater interest
is that of Benedictus Accolti, 'De Bello a Christianis contra Barbaros gesto/
libri iv. Accolti, born at Arezzo, and afterwards
Secretary to the Republic of Florence, where he died in 1465, followed the
legal profession, which, together with the general tendency
of the times, led him to a deep study of the ancients. His book betrays the
influence of the Latin writers, and a conscious striving after historical
art. He cares less for matter than for form, and he writes with more of a social than an ascetic spirit. His diction is rich and
elegant, but occasionally overloaded with ornament. He neglects
the critical for the narrative portion; he praises nothing and condemns
nothing, and puts speeches in praise of the Crusades in
the mouths of Urban, Bohemund, and others. The contents are chiefly taken from
the narrative of William of Tyre. It is the most slegant version of that author
with which I am acquainted, singular as the subject appears dressed in an
antique garb. The book, which ends with the death of
Godfrey, had a great reputation, and
830 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
went through many editions; the last was printed in 1731. Dempster
added to it a commentary, written without spirit or much learning.83 I
lea?c others to decide whether Warton is right in saying that Accolti's work
gave the first idea of his poem to Tasso j38 but
it may be confidently asserted that the style and manner which he first applied
to this subject long prevailed among historians.
The influence of antiquity, then dominant in the widest provinces of
literature, thoroughly pervaded this particular field. I will only mention two
examples, written in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and used and
imitated by most of the modern writers. George Nauclerus, in his
* Historia Chronica/34 did
not devote much time to inquiry: he seems to have exclusively consulted William
of Tyre, and him often in a very cursory manner. The polish of the style is not
so obvious as in Accolti's work, and the result is not nearly so
good. The sentiments are more worldly, especially in
the history of Godfrey's government. The conquests and the well-regulated
administration of affairs are praised at great length, whilst personal or
religious ex-
33 His chief
authorities are Platina and Antoninus. It is true that he quotes contemporaries
in many places. His critical review of the latter is wholly useless.
33 Mill's History of the Crusades, i.
150.
34 Tom. ii., gener. 37.
paulus emilius of verona. 331
cellence is dismissed in a few sentences.36
Paulus Emilius of Verona surpasses him in careful research. In the fourth book
of his 'Res Gestae Francorum' he gives a detailed history of
the Crusades. His chief guide is William of Tyre, but he
also makes use of Guibert and Albert of Aix.36 The
language is good and concise, though he affects to clothe the eulogy of the
French, which is the main object of his history, in words or turns of sentences
founded on classical models.
The character of these works is completely in keeping
with the general tendencies of the period. The tasteless forms were in the
highest degree popular ; at the same time there arose a
certain taste for learning. Compared with the manner in which Blondus used his
authorities, these compilations from Wiiliam of
Tyre show a considerable progress, not to mention the ' Gestes du preux
Godefroi, which are nearly forgotten. The calm frame of rnind in which these
narratives are written is agreeable : we recognize the artist who
takes a pleasure in his work without the bias of personal interest. The
period we have next to survey is not remarkable
for impartiality.
» Page 164.
36 Page 108: there were supplicating
Syrian Christians at Clermont. Page 109: the decrees of
the Council were made known to the whole world in one
day.
392 LITE*
ATT RE OF THE CftUSADKS.
Thomas Poller compiled the ' Historic of th
Holy Warre'57 chiefly from Paulas Emflios and
other later authors. He also looked into Williao
of Tyre and some other original authorities, anc
never rises beyond the facts thus obtained. But a!
the very beginning he discloses the totally differ ent point from which he starts, by asserting that th Pope encouraged the Crusades for his own specia
advantage,
and sent Peter the Hermit to Jerusalen in order that he might return from thence as ai apostle sent from God. This is not a rationalis
opinion
on his part, but the expression of the hosti lity of an Englishman to the Papacy, as is clearl; seen in the following phrase, which is
also a goo< example of his style:—" England, the Pope's pack horse in
that age, which seldom rested in the stabl when there was any work to be done/* etc. Fulle is, as far as I can remember, the first to discuss th often mooted question of the righteousness of th Crusades.
The History of the Crusades by Father Maimbour is more celebrated, and
stands on a very differei footing; it is at the same time affected by outwar
influences.38 The work is dedicated to Louis
XIV
w The third
edition, printed at Cambridge, 1647. * Histoire dea Croiaades pour la Ddlivrance de la Ter Sainto. Third edition. Paris. 1685.
MAIMB0UR6.
833
whose favourthe writer enjoyed ; and the influence of the Court
pervades it in every part. The author has a good opinion of himself, a fund of
religious zeal, tempered by a genuine dash of modern good sense ;39 but
above all things he knows he is writing for
great people and the best company.40 Such
are the circumstances which have chiefly affected Maimbourgs opinions. There is
little depth or soundness of research, though he makes a great parade of authorities and quotations. At that time Bongars' Collection was about to be published. He nowhere critically examines the
original authorities, but relies implicitly upon William of Tyre. Moreover the quotations are jumbled together in the most careless, and
confused manner. Maimbourg has no mean talent for clearness
and vivacity of expression, but evidently thought more of
the fate than of the contents of his work.
The prevalent state of opinion did not long maintain its ground. Maimbourg halted between religious
excitement and scepticism; but the spirit of
n Page 13: Peter in the temple at Jerusalem. " L'hermite
s'e*tant eVeille* sentit ou du moins crut qu'il sentait dans son ame
les effete d'une impression," etc.
40 For example, he says he would mention the princes of the
Crusades, according to his authorities, " si les personnes de qua-lite* qui pr£tendent que quelques-uns de leurs ance'tres aient.eu
part a ces guerres saintes, me font la grace de m envoyer de
bonnes m&noires," etc.
334 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
the eighteenth century was decidedly opposed to I implicit faith, and
restlessly active in remodelling j science and art. A series of works were written, j in greater
or less detail, which threw light upon the j Crusades, and which, taking
different views of the j facts, subjected the products
of the eleventh century j to a searching criticism. Voltaire is the foremost of these writersthe
part in his ' Essai sur te . Moeurs'*1
touching on the Crusades is very weak ; in point of research, for he does not even name any other authorities than William of Tyre, Anna Com nena
and Elmacin, and those he scarcely used. At the same time it exhibits a
remarkable contrast with the later narrative of the Crusades, hy the clear decision of judgment and charms of
style which distinguish his writings. De Guignes,
in his History of the Huns, is more bitter and more learned, but he is dry and
tasteless compared with Voltaire. He says in the very beginning :*2—" Parmi les Francs une
multitude de gens sans aveu, et de libertins, sortirent de TEurope et ne
passerent en Asie qne pour s'enrichir, se lever de plus en plus a leurs vices
et y trouver l'impunite; les crimes de ceux-ci, le fanatismc dc quelques
autres, et le melange bizarre de religion et de chevalerie,
ont fait desap-
41 Cap. 54, vol. xxiv. of the Zweibriick edition.
Histoirc des Huns, t. ii. p. 13.
MAILLY.
335
prouver dans un siecle plus eclaire
ces sortes de guerres." His criticism of the authorities is not such as to make this section
the best part of De Guignes's celebrated work. Whatever names may appear on
the margin, he takes nearly all his materials from William of Tyre, and makes
many blunders whenever he quotes Eastern authorities.43 I cannot speak more favourably of that- section of this author's work devoted to the trade of the French with the Levant.44
Mailly's often-quoted work, ' Sur TEsprit des Croisades/ is far better
on all points. It is in four volumes, and reaches to the end of the First
Crusade. The authorities are better investigated than by De Guignes,
although the author depends more upon the judgment of the ' Histoire Litteraire
de la France9 than
upon his own criticisms. For all accounts of particular events, William of Tyre
is Mailly's principal authority. He is
very lavish of
43 At p. 85, the year 1097 ia given for the taking of Jerusalem
by the Egyptians, and Zonaras and Jacob de Vitry are the authorities quoted. At p. 196, it was mentioned, on the authority of William of Tyre, that ELilidje Arslan had been with
Kerboga's army.
44 He argues that the Crusades were chiefly brought about
by the impediments thrown in the way of the trade of the
Franks, and that this was the best excuse for them. The accounts of the trade of the Merovingians are good, but the
Essay is very incomplete and faulty in many parts.
336 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
his philosophical reflections; but he takes finds them the order of
events, the characte of the chief personages, their actions and their ence.
Maier, who takes his materials chiefly De Guignes, and Heller, who is largely
ind to Mailly, compiled works for German n which are too worthless to
require serious tion.*5
" Urban and Peter 1" exclaims Heller, corpses of two millions
of men lie heavy on graves, and will fearfully summon you on the <
judgment."4* There was a strong reaction aj this violent
condemnation; but the sentiment prompted it was
by no means extinct; and to the present day it has occasionally foun pression
in various languages. Haken's Hist<
the Crusades47 is
written in this spirit: the barism of the Middle Ages, the fatal fanaticisn mad
impulse to action, meet with continual 1 bation; and he studies the authorities more gently than any earlier
writer holding these 1 and engrafts a tolerably complete series of statements, likewise
authentic, on the nan
45 Maier,' Versuch einer Geschichte der Krenzzuge in
Folgen.' Berlin, 1780. Heller,' Geschichte der Kreuzzug
dem heiligen Lande.'
3 vols.
Frank en thai, 1784.
48 Page 16.
47 ' Gemalde der Kreuzziige.'
4 parts.
Frankfurt, 18(
MILLS AND LEBEAU.
337
of William of Tyre. The author, tried by modern standards, is open to
the charge of want of taste and turgidity of style, and of a pathos frequently
out of place.*8
Mills' History of the Crusades,49 as
far as outward form goes, is far preferable to
Haken's, and little inferior in the diligence bestowed upon the collection of
materials; but the absence of methodical criticism is seen in the
patriotic leaning to William of Malmesbury, and still more clearly in the
appendix characterizing the original authorities.
Here and there a slight doubt is expressed concerning Albert of Aix
and William of Tyre, but always with regard to some particular fact, never from
general views of the grounds on which their narratives rest. By far the safest
authority in the whole work appears to be De Guignes,
according to whom the interest of commerce, next to the pilgrimages, exercised
the most powerful influence on the origin of the
Crusades.50
But the spirit of the eighteenth century is still more clearly shown in
the passages on the Crusades
48 The Essay of the same author, in Ersch and Oruber's Encyclopaedia, article " Bouillon," closely follows Wilken.
49 Charles Mills' History of the Crusades, 2 vols. 2nd edition.
London, 1821.
50 Peter's oration is mentioned at page 38, but not his dream.
z
338 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
in Lebeaus ' Histoire du Bas-Empire :'51
"Cesa, peditions nominees saintes," he says in one pbct " qui
Tauraient ete en effet si Tesprit de la reiip* chretienne etait un esprit de
guerres et de cot quetes,—if it was really intended to free the East and had
Constantinople joined the Crusaders,—!* although the Holy Places deserve
our venerabn. this will scarcely justify the murder of those wko desecrated
them," etc. We see that neither tk
sources nor the forms of the religious enthusna of the eleventh century were
understood by tha writer. I should scarcely have mentioned the wot
which belongs rather to general literature tbr to history, had not St. Martin's
name led me to expect special information from Oriental source* But this is not
the case. Albert of Aix, William 4 Tyre, and even Marino Sanuto are the chief authorities ; and, with few exceptions, the work is mainly founded on
Michaud's History of the Crusades.
Lastly, St. Maurice's c
Resume de THistoire dfi Croisades'52 is
wholly unimportant. It is written, after the modern French historical fashion, in i glowing romantic style, and only repeats the matte found in the
best-known authors concerning the First Crusade. The Crusades, he says, were not
M Edited by MM. St. Martin and Brosset, T. xy. p. 30L w Paris, 1826.
WILKEN.
839
the product of a general religious excitement; they were the work of
the Popes, whose tottering (sic)
hierarchy
could only have been saved by such means. Tasso's poem and brilliant fictions
kept the world in a state of illusion until the eighteenth century; "mais les lois de la verite sont
impres-criptibles," etc.53
That this opinion is not universally accepted at the present day, is to
be attributed as a lasting merit to Wilken. Generally speaking, when Wilken
began his History,64 the
exclusive conceit that prevailed
in the previous century had somewhat abated, and the feeling (of the Germans at
any rate) had reverted with affectionate enthusiasm towards the Middle Ages.
Wilken, with great and sound learning, endowed with a remarkable
power of narrating, undertook to turn this
feeling to account, and to represent to our age the Crusades as they appeared to contemporary actors and writers. His work gave him, and with
justice, the first place in this province of history. No one doubts its merit,
and I have no intention of lessening it by attempting
to indicate in what respect some later history may be a further progress in the
right di-
58 P. 324. He uses Condorcetfs motto: " Les Croisades, ea» treprises pour la superstition, servirent a la ditruire."
44 The first volume appeared in 1807.
Z 2
340 LITERATURE OF THE CRU8ADK8.
rection. The chief point is,
that even with W3-ken's knowledge and freedom of mind, he has not attained to a complete mastery over his material* The ' Gesta' and its
copyists contradict each other in the same breath, according to circumstances:
Albert of Aix and William of Tyre, William of Tjn and
the original authorities, are annealed together; and, in a much higher style but with precisely the same objects, the method of
the Archbishop of Tjr reappears. It is scarcely
necessary to quote indm-dual passages, or to illustrate the consequences of
this mode of dealing with the subject.
The case is not much altered by the fact that on
particabr points the statements of William of Tyre or Albert of Aix are amended
or contradicted by some extracts from the original
authorities. The radical distinction between historical and
legendary traditk* is nowhere clearly defined; and in no case, even
ii the original authorities, is the individual evidence tested by the general
character of the report. The sentiment that prompts this proceeding is higher
than any we recognize in William of Tyre; we see the same veneration for the records of those times, and this constitutes the great charm
and merit of the work. It is, in
effect, a similar, bat somewhat more developed form of William of l^fit The
representation of Peter as the original canst
E
WILKEN.
341
of the war, of Godfrey as its Agamemnon,65—the
numerous legends forged by Albert of Aix and his imitators,—are reproduced in
the same form which the Archbishop has impressed upon them, as it would seem,
for all ages to come. In particular instances, the ascetic colouring of
most of the original authorities, and the chivalrous tendency of most of the
legends, have suggested many a picturesque passage to Wilken. Hence his work
has a livelier and more religious character than that of William of Tyre, but it is conceived in the same spirit.
It seems strange to find a deeper religious feeling in Wilken than in a
writer of the twelfth century, and a few words on this circumstance will not be
out of place here, as they will serve to mark another characteristic of this work. The expression of this religious fervour
arises less from the author's actual opinions., than from the conscious attempt on his part to narrate the history of those times in a
spirit in accordance with their own. We readily admit that
this mode of writing history is an advance compared with that of the preceding
century, and that the author's enthusiasm communicates itself to the reader.
But it is also necessary that the enthusiasm felt should naturally
** After Taaso, I have only met with this expression in Heeren,
in his well-known prize essay of 1806.
wrur Tnm :se «n*ecr. ad ifcac kc orir
uuarr vie ~zut waQ ▼mca he rrt oroa A r.rdoi*: i» v* uiooc iia Hie iuMTjtitc si
iuui^ ia rjrgg tiac :nese views are origE
J,r»uri v* hit limit r j: 2ua dEect be produce*
we -r-il franc die sacericr of the narrator, 1 e^*r ^ ZA»t in it iia xyte.
Tk» taak will i
n*".;
rn^h.
-*a3w ^ a contemporary writer, 1 sjz zan in :he events he narrates; ret
varr^ij irattcahie even by him.
The success
r.or
* r^viers author will exactly depend npoi ^ki.i wltir* which he conceals this assumption
t'trnzu die* and mode of thought.
For exar wfarn Raymond Agiles speaks of the knights ei of Christ, who began the holy war by the comn of God, and who mowed down the godless with pious joy, we witness with a
feeling of i pfithy
the deep passion displayed. We see by
nidc the rudeness and the blind prejudic well as the exuberant force and
energy, of generation. But it is only
because this unio <|tmliti<'H is so vividly portrayed, that a nal intrrest and a clear perception of it are deveh in us. An
historian, on the contrary, in the Hcnsr of the word, who, as a matter of coi rounidcrs his readers on the same level as hiir must endeavour to write in the language of
WILKEN.
343
own time: and in this age we cannot regard the Crusades as a holy war,
or the pilgrims as the people or champions of God; we can only describe a council as "an assembly of venerable fathers." When
this is the case, unless the immeasurable difference between the actors and the
hearers has been previously explained, the picture must be confused and out of keeping. This is the effect produced in Wilken's work, by the prominence
given to the ascetic element of the original authorities over the spirit of
William of Tyre.
Although this defect does not, like some we have before pointed out,
concern only particular portions of the work, but runs
through the whole, still the importance of the history, in many respects,
cannot be denied. Wilken has the great merit of having been the first to use
Oriental authorities with good results. The narrative is lucid and full of
life; it has epic breadth, without being tiresome; and is cast,
as it were, in one mould, without being monotonous. We might wish for greater
distinctness in grouping his subjects, but the
richness and vividness of the details must satisfy the most critical reader.
Wilken unquestionably far surpasses
all his predecessors; nor can any subsequent writer, for the amount of service
rendered, claim to be ranked on the same high level.
344 LITZRATTRK
OF THE CBCSADES.
From the first appearance of Wflken's work i th* present day, it has had a success such asai works have enjoyed. In Germany" the book &
holds
undisputed pre-eminence, so far as we en judge from later histories of the Crusades. Funic' sketches are not without a certain freedom c
judgment; but from first to last he renounces a pretension to that learned mastery of the subjec which alone would entitle him to be regarded as ii dependent of the assistance he derives from Wilkei The sketches,
however, will always be read with ii terest; every page displays the most
generous of nions, a just appreciation of facts, and remarkab talent for arrangement. The portions of Von Rai rner's 1
Hohenstauffen' relating to this subject,; well as Van Kampen's 1
History of the Crusades,1 owe
still more to Wilken. Von Raumer has, at ai rate, a profound and extensive
knowledge of tl original authorities, and forms his judgment on h own grounds; whereas Van Kampen generally pc sesses only an average knowledge of his material and takes his views for the
greater part from Heeren ' Essay on the Crusades.'57 It would be an endle
M Von Kaumer'e 4 Hohenststiffen,' books i. and iii.: the fii
edition. Van K am pen, 4 Proeve ecner Geschiedenia der Km
togten,' 4 parts.
Haarlem, 1824.
i7 He also owes much to Regenbogcn, who competed for t
prize of the Paris Academy, with Choiaeul-Daillecourt and wi
SCHLOSSER.
345
undertaking to enumerate the various criticisms and
■ views on the Crusades which are to be
found in other k historical works; and the only effect of it would
■ generally be to confirm the uncontradicted fact of I Wilken's
influence. I will, however, mention
that i Schlosser's narrative, in the third part of
his ' His-i tory of the Middle Ages,68 is
on many points in i striking opposition
to William of Tyre: his objections are chiefly founded on the
original authorities. Matthias Eretz of Edessa, and the
'Gesta/ are treated as the best sources of information.
Schlos-ser has not been able wholly to discard the Legends,
and the statements in the text are frequently at variance with those in the
notes; for instance, on the subject of Peter the Hermit and the Assizes of
Jerusalem.
Meanwhile historical science has taken a similar turn in
France; after Wilken and Schlosser, we may mention Michaud and Capefigue.
Michaud's ' History of the Crusades ' holds a similar position in France to
that of Wilken's in Germany: at any rate, it is introduced to his readers with the same pretensions. There is no lack of large promises in prefaces
and expositions; several fellow-labourers
Heeren; but whose manuscript was lost in its transit through
the post-office, and was only published in 1819.
M The first part of the third volume, p. 129.
346 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES*
contribute original, and often most valuable aud Michaud himself has
devoted four large 1 to a
criticism of the original authors, which has omitted to do.50
Moreover his talent ration is unquestionable, and the style, a
somewhat inflated, is rounded, and full of and life. His judgment differs
materially fi negative tendencies of the preceding centur he shows a correct
and distinct appreciation conditions of a former age, and of opinion* he does not affect to share. But thes€ merits are thrown into the shade
by two i First, vtduable as is the material contained 6
Bibliotheque,' the critical and methodical r is very inferior to that displayed
by Wilken.1 to mention his remissness in not distinsr
between original and secondhand authoriti arc at a loss how to designate
Michaud's ar selection from among his materials. He continuous use of Albert of
Aix and Will Tyre, all through the first and second volu
69 First in the ' Bibliographie :* then in the ' Bibliotlu
Croisadcs.'
60 I can here only speak of the events in the ■ Hist Croisadcs.' With reference to the ' Bibliotheque des Or the matter may bo looked at from other sides; but th would bo the same. The article " Godefroy do Boui]
the * Biographic Universale,' also by Michaud, is defects
ticijin to a greater degree than any part of his history.
t
MICHAUD.
347
his history; and the discrepant statements of his authorities are often
cited without comment. This Wilken, although he does not go deep or far enough,
never omits. The preface announces that it was not difficult to discriminate
between the true and the fabulous in the original authorities.
And this may be true, if, with Michaud, we consider as fabulous only the stories of prodigies and their acceptance. But it is stated further on, that the contradictions between the authors of the various nations—Franks, Greeks, and Saracens—are almost impossible to solve. This is
repeated in the text, and in the notes we frequently read that in such a place
the narrative of Albert of Aix and that of Anna Comnena may serve to correct
each other. In most cases the author is content to add particular statements taken from one original, to those of another, without
caring whether the latter were in direct contradiction to the fragments thus interpolated. Our wonder that the manufactured speeches in Robert the
Monk are used as originals,61—that
mention is made of Baldrich and of Guibert a hundred times,—that Tudebod is
seldom quoted, and the ' Gesta' never,—ceases when we find the description of
the Council taken from Au-bert's ' Histoire de la Conquete de Jerusalem/ as if
81 Vol. i. p. 209.
348 LITERATURE OP THE CRUSADES.
it were a contemporary chronicle; and the ritual the consecration given
from the ' Pontificate Ron num' as a formula belonging to the year 1095
Concerning Raymond of Toulouse, we find the in dent, first related, we
believe, by Mariana, that 1 as a reward for his brave deeds, received the hai
of Dofia Elvira from King Alfonso; a fact which h been doubted, but completely
proved by the • H toire de Languedoc.' Michaud has not taken t trouble to examine the sources; nor has, he even o served that Dom
Vaissette alludes to the want contemporary reports, and only rests his statemei
(incorrectly as it happens) on Roderick of Toledc From a list of similar cases
1 will only mention o example, as it illustrates the manner in which
tl author deals with a question between Legend a History; and this is more
important than a fi individual errors. The visit of Bohemund and Bal win to
Godfrey of Bouillon, at Jerusalem, is correc described, as given by Albert of Aix and Fulcher Chartres; it is there said that Godfrey
accompani the princes on their journey home, as far as Jericl but then returned
to Jerusalem, where he appear
■ Vol. i. pp. 99, 126.
68 Roderick, in the passage cited, mentions only the mania
not the victories which were supposed to have recommended
Count as a son-in-law.
MICHAUD.
849
i\ as a lawgiver before the assembled barons, citizens, | and
Syrians. In fact, the whole is taken
from the * Assizes; although it is expressly stated in a part i of
the appendix, that all this appears to be a col-i lection of legends, and that
it is impossible to tell : how much concerning the Assizes related to
God-r frey, or to a later time. Yet
in spite of this admission, the time and place, the cause and manner, of the law-making are given in the
text with the utmost composure.64
This leads me to the second point; namely, the manner in which a number
of stories takeu for good or for bad from original authorities are interpolated into the groundwork. The events they
tell of may possibly have occurred, but they are valuable
only as poetical creations or historical romances. They are totally devoid of
authenticity, and the historian might have left them to his
reader's fancy or to the pencil of the artist without any
injury to his reputation. On the council of Piacenza, putting aside its
European decrees, we possess but one short notice of Bernold, that Greek
ambassadors had there besought help against the Saracens. Michaud states65 that
the attention of all was fixed on the Ambassadors of Alexius; after they had addressed the assembly, Urbaih supported them with 64 Vol. ii. pp. 14, 537. " Vol. i. p. 97.
ul irzninesza
-vino, "At
interests -if ain uii: -: 7.^3r«flom rmid wisest: aeraai 7 nzcii razne to no sncsnsiaii an. tic sabjs Tie -tk.r- "f "^e Coimci CSomonr is §cH an ir^ar^i to. 6 Hie lnnaar makes Peoar "ie H= leriicT "o "He laaenhiy "ie
misery of the Easts Fehler! Hyperlink-Referenz
ungültig. ie ** In mcnmmr les madenr? ct icari* ies Tir^ena. ?ie?s ivair le visage
ibtf ^ Trnsrem**- «. ^ns -*air -Aonxie par des an*$i •a —-mcnca ^-ursa ^ns Les crjeurs.^ I v n:r ip:u. n^^eif jj isser: -hat Pet<3r the ft jls truiii 2«:r jav* heen it Clermont, bat it ^rr.un "jiar "iier? a 20 mention anywhere of ! izttr.zL :r :c "ne direct ct his eloquence."17 Pel •he H-rr^nr l *scccd ±r:e mtrcdiiced. to give t ir.rhor m -.crxr^Liirr :o display his powers of c amprior., i :ie accodt of the embassy to K< b^cr*, which L= embellished and amplified in t same ir.ar.ncr.
We will quote one more case, where William Tyre's account has been
dressed op falsely. YV liam of Tyre relates, simply enough, from Alb
M Vol i. p. 103.
*7 tVMJiam '/f Tyre, i. 14: the only place in which his nann
lut-iiUuuf'A," prom ul^ari* ranonibus, quipacem, snggerentePe
if'-n-r/iita. fjiw r!e rebus perierat, reformarent, qni verbo sibi \\\w\4*MMt%m gerr-bat sollicitudinem, novissimead hanc exhoi
liorififi
w i-onvr-rtit, rlimi* ;" then follows Urban 8 speech. 1 \*x\. \n obviously rormpt.
I
MICHAUD.
851
of Aix, that Baldwin had rejoined the main army at Meraasch, and that
it was only respect for Godfrey of Bouillon that saved him
from Bohemund's wrath for his conduct at Tarsus. By the
advice of an Armenian called Pancratius, he had determined,
in spite of the small number of his immediate followers, to advance into
Mesopotamia. The diminution of his force was caused by the general disapproval
of his conduct to Tancred. Michaud first gives a
lively description of Baldwin's ambition, and then goes on to
say, that as the devil took Christ, so Pancratius took the Prince, to the top
of a mountain, and showed him all the country round; a long speech is then inserted, in which Pancratius enlarges upon the fruitfulness of the
land and the ease with which it can be conquered. Baldwin was filled with
worldly desires and ambitions. His wife died; but while the requiem for the dead sounded, he thought only of the glories of this world. He appealed to the princes, but found no
response. With some trouble he collected a small body of men, but the
princes determined forcibly to restrain him from
his unholy scheme. He then hurried on his preparations, and separated himself silently and in secret from the rest of the Crusaders.68 The
only comment we have
» Michaud, i. p. 260.
352 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADE8.
to make is, that none of these interesting partus-1 lars
are to be found in the original authorities.
In all essentials, therefore, the relation to M ham of Tyre is the same ; for even M ichaud's sup plementary matter is
mostly embroidered on tk groundwork borrowed from the Archbishop. The* premises
being granted, the work deserves i2 praise. It shows great diligence and
plastic fancj, activity of thought and power of expression. Bute fails in one
great essential: there is a lack of cartful investigation, and, above all,
of the sense of conscientious research in small matters. Had it noc been for this, an active inquiring
spirit like Mi-chaud's would scarcely have rested content tt be merely a
continuator of William of Tyre's method of writing history. Where he
does go I* yond William of Tyre, it is more in the
manner oi Torquato Tasso, whom he frequently cites ; amooj other passages, that
in which Baldwin's characta is given, as if its authenticity could be strength
ened by such means. Judging from his own poe tical attempts, (the best name for
these inventions, we can comprehend his admiration
for the ' Gen salemme Liberata;' though, after much examination he gives the
preference to the ' Gerusalemm Conquistata' for its greater historical truth.69 A
M In a special appendix to the first roltune.
CAPEPIGUE.
858
William of Tyre interwove the historical matter of the original
authorities with the legends of Albert of Aix, so has Michaud combined the
poetical masterpiece of the Italian poet with the
historical work of the Archbishop.
If we turn to Capefigue, who promises an entirely
new view of the Crusades, in his work on the French Kings,70 we
find in every line unmistakable evidence of the position
and manner of the author. A few short extracts will suffice to give an idea of the whole, and for this purpose I will give the characters of Godfrey
and of Tancred, both taken from the third volume,
relating to Hugues Capet. First of all, we learn from his polemic how important
Tasso has become to the Frenchman of the present generation.
Twice in a short space the poet is called, " le grand corrupteur de
Thistoire." The author warns his readers, as St. Maurice did before him,
against Tasso's influence, and allows no part of his narrative to pass uncontradicted. But what Capefigue gives us instead is by no means
belter. We meet with clever phrases in particular instances, and with foregone
conclusions on all subjects, occasionally verging upon the truth, but seldom
attained by searching investigation. He says of Tancred, at page 120, "II montait un puis-
70 Hugues Capet et les Bois de la troisieme race, t. ii. and iii.
2 A
354 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
sant coursier, se couvrait de rudes
armuresetfe sait des lances; son caractere etait sombre, mefin irritable au dernier point, et aucunement sociable;: portait avec lui le type
agreste et indomptabk k raontagnards." Apart from the utterly romance^ colouring of this portrait, which must
either dd# the reader, or cause him to lay the book down I once,
it would be difficult for the author to snpptf the whole of his theory by any
authority, thougks might be possible to defend some part of it Bd now we come
to Godfrey. He says of him, at pip! 72, "
Godefroy, eleve par de vieux serviteurs im la sauvagerie
de la chasse et de la guerre, le baita! Godefroy des Ardennes et de Souabe,
proclamafei tipape Anaclct. Mais—la
finit la vie grossierefi* sensuelle; comme Tempereur Henri IV, il eprwm; a
l'aspect de Rome un profond repentir; Thon© j de chair et de sang s'agenouilla devant les pomp" de TEglise catholique." Under the influence of the*: penitent and contrite feelings, Godfrey
takes tk} Cross and enters upon the government of Jerusalem I and of
Palestine,—a joyless desert country, deprived of all temporal splendour. This view is w*
without some foundation of truth. No
one wil deny the influence of religious asceticism on tk progress of the
Crusades, which indeed it is part of the object of the whole book to show; *
CAPEFIGUE.
855
we find it expressed on occasion of
the quarrel between Henry and Gregory.71 "Au moyen-age le Catholicisme
est la pensee sociale, le mobile de la civilisation; la feodalite est la
matiere forte qui resiste au mouvement des idees." I will also grant that this thesis contains a certain
amount of truth, although the reverse might be maintained with equal
plausibility; but there can be no doubt as to the judgment on Capefigue's way
of relating particular facts. Out of a general idea he creates a numerous series of deeds, persons, and opinions;
for one that is correct, he produces a hundred that are false, and he allows
himself the greatest poetical licence. We can easily conceive how, in spite of
the entire variance of their views, Albert of Aix should be treated by Capefigue in particulars as an original authority. In fact,
Capefigue's mode of writing trenches as much on the province of legend as anything that Albert of Aix has left; for what else is it but
legend, to clothe a preconceived idea in free and graceful forms, which can only by courtesy be called history? If we
take this measure of the whole, we can feel but small interest in the
examination of the separate parts of the work. There are admirable remarks upon
certain facts, and there is a fullness and freshness of
71 Tom. ii. p. 186, and passim.
356 LITERATURE OF THE CRUSADES.
narrative which deserve no small praise, if wi get over the origin of
his materials. But it i dent that no real advance in historical know can be
made by such labours as these.
JOnv BDWJLBD TAYLOK, PKIHTBB, LtTTLli QlTBBff BTBBBT, HWCOLI^B IV*
F1BLDB.
i
i!