Chapter XXVIII: Book XIV: A.d. 1248-1255 (5)

History has a deeper lament to make over the second consequence of this crusade. It is certain that it contributed greatly to change the form of the Egyptian government, and to fill that unhappy country with all the scourges that military despotism brings in its train. It was a spectacle worthy of our attention and our pity, to see, after a bloody revolution, a rich and vast country abandoned all at once to slaves purchased in the most barbarous regions of Asia. Despotism, which always suspects everything that approaches it, dreaded the natural defenders of Egypt, and was willing to confide its safety to men without country and without family; to those men who, according to the expression of Tacitus, when speaking of the guards of Artabanus, have not the least idea of virtue, are incapable of remorse, are instruments always ready for crime, and only know the hand that pays them. Most of the dynasties of Syria had already perished victims of their imprudent confidence in foreign soldiers. That of Saladin shared the same fate, and was, like all the others, overthrown by the barbarians whom it had intrusted with its defence. The dynasty of the Baharite Mamelukes, which succeeded that of Ayoub, was not destined to have a long duration; and a body of slaves, purchased in Circassia, in their turn got possession of the power that had armed them. Two centuries after, the Ottoman empire overcame the second dynasty of the Mamelukes; but their military government, amidst the crimes of tyranny and excesses of disorder, for a long time braved the power of the conqueror, and subsisted to the end of the eighteenth century, when the presence of a French army completed its annihilation. Thus, two French expeditions into Egypt were marked, one by the revolt and elevation of the Mamelukes, the other by their destruction.

Philosophy and humanity, however, derived some advantages from the expedition of St. Louis, which history does not dispute. The French monarch heard in Syria that a powerful emir was collecting a great number of books, and forming a library which was to be open to all the learned, and to all desirous of gaining knowledge. He became anxious to imitate this noble example, and gave orders for having all the manuscripts preserved in the monasteries transcribed. This literary treasure, confided to the care of Vincent de Beauvais, was placed in an apartment near the holy chapel, and became the first model of those bibliographical establishments, of those precious depositories of letters and sciences, of which the capital of France is now so justly proud.

It has often been said, that the hospital of the Quinze-Vingts was established by Louis IX. as an asylum for three hundred gentlemen who had returned blind from the holy war. The ordinance by which Louis founded this hospital says nothing to confirm the opinion at first spread by several writers, and which has since become sanctioned as a popular tradition.[337] Joinville speaks of the institution of the Quinze-Vingts; but he says nothing of the motives that induced the pious monarch to found this establishment. Besides, we should add that the origin of the Quinze-Vingts is posterior by several years to his return from the crusade. Mezerai relates in his history, that an hospital for the blind was established at Rouen in the middle of the twelfth century; and this ancient monument of charity might give Louis the idea of founding a similar institution in his capital.

Before this crusade, Tartary was only known by the formidable emigrations of the Moguls. This vast region was in some sort revealed to the West by the missionaries sent thither by the king of France. William de Longjumeau, who set out from the isle of Cyprus, collected a great number of fabulous traditions in the course of his voyage; but he likewise brought back some curious notices and some exact observations. Rubruquis, who started during the king’s abode in Palestine, and returned after the departure of the Crusaders, did not succeed in his embassy to the powerful emperor of the Moguls; but, as a traveller, he observed with sagacity the country, the manners, and the laws of the Tartars; and his relation is still a valuable monument, that more recent voyages have not thrown into oblivion.

The chroniclers of the time, even Joinville himself, who never turned their attention to anything but the events of the war, and gave no heed to the progress of civilization, have said nothing of the knowledge Louis might have acquired concerning the legislation of the East. What interest would not the old chronicles possess in our eyes, if they had reported the conversations of the royal legislator with the Oriental Christians versed in the study of the laws and customs that prevailed in the colonies of the Franks! It was during the sojourn of the king in Syria, that the chancellor of the kingdom of Cyprus collected all the laws that formed _the Assizes of Jerusalem_. Should we not be warranted, then, in saying that we owe this precious collection to the counsels, and still more to the encouragement, of Louis IX.? It is certain that the pious monarch neglected nothing that would enable him to acquire a knowledge of the usages and customs of the countries he visited; and that the Assizes of Jerusalem served as a model for the monument of legislation which afterwards constituted the greatest glory of his reign.

One advantage of this crusade, and that, doubtless, the greatest of all, was, that Louis returned much better than he was when he went, and that adversity developed and perfected in him all the qualities to which his subjects looked for their future prosperity. A Protestant historian, when speaking of this subject, makes use of these remarkable words: “The fruit of his voyage and of his affliction was, that he returned a much better man, having increased in zeal, modesty, prudence, and diligence; and that he was more honoured and beloved by his people than he had ever been before his departure; and by the universal earth was held in singular admiration for his good life and constancy amidst dangers, as a miracle among kings.”[338]

Far from seeking to forget his misfortunes, Louis was constantly referring to them, as a great example that God had been willing to present to the world. He attributed them principally to his own faults; and the austerities to which he condemned himself during the remainder of his life, were, says Father Daniel, a kind of mourning, which he always wore for the brave men who had perished in the crusade. On his return, he reformed the coinage, and by his order, silver Parisis and Gros Tournois were struck, upon which chains were figured, in order to preserve the memory of his captivity. These remembrances rendered him more dear to his people, and greater in the eyes of all Christians. Happy are princes upon whom the lessons of misfortune are not lost! happy also is the age in which men are not judged according to the favours of fortune, and in which the adversity of the great ones of the earth has in it something respectable and sacred!

The misfortunes of the time, as we have already said, had ruined a great number of the most illustrious families of the kingdom. We know that many nobles had sold their lands to provide means for undertaking the crusade; and history has preserved acts passed in the camp, even of Mansourah, by which several gentlemen sold their domains to the crown. Louis was not at all willing that his companions in arms should be condemned to poverty for having followed him into the East, and for having shared with him the labours and perils of the holy war; he therefore ordered a list to be made of the indigent nobility, and found means to assist them out of his own revenue; he relieved, with affecting kindness, the widows and orphans of the brave knights he had seen fall by his side; and his solicitude extended even to the poor labourers who had suffered, either in the war of the Pastors, by his absence, or by the inefficiency of the laws. “Serfs,” said he, “belong to Jesus Christ as well as to us, and in a Christian kingdom we ought never to forget that they are our brethren.” Since his war with the Mussulmans, he could not endure the idea of the blood of Christians being shed in battle. His ordinances forbade war between individuals in all the domains of the crown; and the authority of his example contributed to maintain order and peace throughout the provinces.

Before his departure, Louis had sent commissaries to repair the iniquities committed in the government of his kingdom. On his return, he was determined to see everything himself, and pervaded his provinces; being convinced that God will not pardon kings who have neglected any opportunity or means of becoming acquainted with the truth. What a touching spectacle it must have been to see a king as anxious to discover all the ills that had been effected in his name, as other men are to trace out any injustice done to themselves! In short, his paternal vigilance succeeded in destroying all abuses, and repairing all faults; “and finally,” says the noble confidant of his thoughts, “in lapse of time, the kingdom of France multiplied so greatly by the justice and rectitude that reigned in it that the domains, feudal fines, rents, and revenues, increased in one year by a half, and vastly improved the kingdom of France.”

We cannot finish the account of this crusade without speaking of the emperor Frederick II. and Innocent IV., who had so much influence over the events we have described. It may be said of Frederick, that his glory underwent as many vicissitudes as his fortune. Contemporary chronicles sometimes praise him with exaggeration, and at others blame him without measure. Such is ever the fate of princes who have lived amidst the conflict of parties. The spirit of party, which has judged them in their lifetime, leaves to history nothing but uncertainties, and appears still to exist for them in posterity. No historian has denied the talent or the genius of Frederick; he was one of the most illustrious captains of his times; he is placed among the princes who, by their example and their munificence, encouraged the revival of letters in the middle ages. He displayed great qualities upon the throne, but he did not know how to put himself in harmony with the spirit of his contemporaries;[339] he had neither the defects nor the virtues of his age, and that is the reason that he succumbed in the obstinate struggle with the popes. If this struggle had not troubled and divided Europe, and if Frederick had been animated by the same sentiments as St. Louis, there is no doubt that Christianity would have triumphed over Islamism, and that the Crusaders would have subdued a great portion of the East.

The memory of Innocent IV. has been judged as variously as that of his redoubtable adversary. When looking at his manifestoes, his warlike enterprises, his spiritual and temporal triumphs, we might believe that the most able and ambitious of conquerors was seated in the chair of St. Peter. The events to which he has attached his name, and which he directed by his policy, leave us nothing to say regarding his genius or his character. After the death of Frederick, this pontiff returned to Italy, which country he traversed in triumph; but by a singular contrast, he who had shaken the power of emperors, only entered Rome tremblingly. The Romans had sent envoys to him to express their surprise at seeing him lead a wandering life far from his capital, and from the flock of which he would have to render an account to the sovereign judge.

Although obedient in this respect to the will of the people of Rome, Innocent pursued his projects against the remains of the imperial family, and death surprised him in the kingdom of Naples, of which he was taking possession in the name of the Church; having lost all care for the fate of the Christian colonies of the East. The pontiff who succeeded him, although he had neither his ambition, nor his authority, nor his genius, followed not the less the career that had been marked out for him. He endeavoured to accomplish all the threats of the Holy See, and the thunders of Rome reposed no more in the hands of Alexander VI. than they had done in those of his predecessors.

That which might justify the persevering, obstinate ardour with which the popes pursued the posterity of Frederick, is that by it they liberated Italy from the yoke of the emperors of Germany; and that this rich country remained sixty years without seeing the armies of the Germanic empire. But, on the other side, this advantage was purchased by so much violence, and by so many calamities, that the nations were never able to enjoy or know the value of it. The popes, who were not always sufficiently strong to maintain the work of their policy, were sometimes obliged to call in foreign princes to their aid, who introduced fresh subjects of discord into Italy. War constantly brought on war; conquerors were expelled by other conquerors. This revolution lasted during several centuries, and became fatal, not only to Italy, but to Germany, France, and Spain, to all who wished to partake of the spoils of the house of Swabia.

It is not our task to describe these afflicting scenes: to return to that which more particularly belongs to our subject, we will glance, whilst terminating these general considerations, at the crusade which was then being preached in all the Italian cities against Eccelino de Romano, whom the voice of the people, as well as the voice of the Church, had declared to be the enemy of God and men.

This Italian noble had taken advantage of the disorder of the civil wars, to usurp a tyrannical domination over several cities of Lombardy and Trevisano. All that we are told of the tyrants of fabulous antiquity falls short of the cruelties of Eccelino. Contemporary history compares his barbarous reign to pestilence, inundations, conflagrations, and the most terrible convulsions of nature. The pope at first excommunicated Eccelino, _in whom he could see nothing but a wild beast in a human form_; a short time afterwards he published a crusade against this scourge of God and humanity. John of Vicenza, who had preached public peace twenty years before, was the first preacher of this holy war. The faithful who took up arms against Eccelino, were to receive the same indulgences as those who went to Palestine. This crusade, which was undertaken in the cause of humanity and liberty, was preached in all the republics of Italy: the eloquence of the holy orators easily prevailed over the multitude; but that which most inflamed the zeal and ardour of the people, was the sight of the wretches whom Eccelino had caused to be mutilated amidst tortures, and the groans and lamentations of the families from which the tyrant had chosen his victims. In most of the provinces of Italy, the inhabitants of the cities and country took up arms to defend the cause of religion and their native land; eager to obtain the civic crown, if they triumphed over tyranny, and the crown of martyrdom, if they chanced to fall.

The standard of the cross was displayed at the head of the army; the crowd of Crusaders marched against Eccelino, singing this hymn of the Church,—

“Vexilla regis prodeunt,
Fulget crucis mysterium.”

The army of the faithful at first obtained rapid successes; but as the archbishop of Ravenna, who commanded it, wanted skill, and as the Crusaders of each town had no leaders but monks and ecclesiastics, they did not profit by their early advantages. The intrigues of policy and the spirit of rivalry relaxed the ardour of the combatants; victory was sometimes balanced by reverses: four years of labours and perils scarcely sufficed for the suppression of an impious domination, or to avenge humanity by the defeat and death of Eccelino.

I regret that the plan of this work does not permit me to speak in greater detail of this war, in which religion so happily assisted the cause of liberty, and which forms so great a contrast with most contemporary events. At this period such a number of crusades were preached, that history can scarcely follow them, and we feel astonished that the population of the West was not exhausted by so many unfortunate wars. Whilst Louis IX. was returning from the East, where he had left his army, and a holy league was being formed in Italy against the tyrant Eccelino, sixty thousand Crusaders, commanded by a king of Bohemia, marched against the people of Lithuania, still addicted to the worship of idols; and another army of Crusaders was leaving the banks of the Oder and the Vistula to combat the pagans of Prussia, so many times attacked and conquered by the Teutonic knights. History is gratified at being able to remark that in this last expedition the cities of Brunsbad and Konigsberg were founded; but the founding of two flourishing cities cannot obliterate the remembrance of the desolation of many provinces. If any advantages could arise from these sanguinary expeditions, they were certainly the progressive steps of Christianity, which brought together people till that time separated by difference in manners and religious belief; they were the lessons of misfortune and the fruits of experience, which in the end enlightened Europe, and gave to the human mind a new direction more conformable with the laws of justice and reason, more favourable to the interests of humanity. It is thus that Providence, always mixing good with evil, renews human societies, and sows the prolific seeds of civilization in the very heart of disorder and barbarism.

END OF VOL. II.

AINGER’S EDITION OF CHARLES LAMB.

(_By Arrangement with Messrs. Macmillan & Co., London._)

CHARLES LAMB’S POEMS, PLAYS, AND MISCELLANEOUS ESSAYS.

With 50 Pages of Introduction and Notes by ALFRED AINGER, Editor of “The Essays of Elia.” 12mo, cloth, gilt top. 432 pages. $1.50.

“In this volume Lamb’s poems have been chronologically arranged, and the reader can trace the various events of the poet’s life in his works.”—_N. Y. Examiner._

“Mr. Ainger’s work has been most intelligently and satisfactorily performed. The edition is one which may be safely recommended for accuracy and completeness.”—_Boston Courier._

“This volume will give endless pleasure to thousands—making Lamb no longer a mere name, but a friend. Those readers who know Lamb as a poet only by his verses, few in number, but of exquisite beauty, will be surprised at discovering the range of his poetic power. The prose Essays in this volume abound in delightful humor.”—_Providence Journal._

_The London Academy_ says: “Last year we had the incomparable ‘_Elia_’—here we get all of Lamb’s miscellaneous writings that he had himself selected for preservation in a permanent shape. None will ever want a more satisfactory edition than this. For the benefit of the curious we must add that Mr. Ainger here prints for the first time a copy of Album Verses, written for Mrs. De Morgan, and a letter to Dodwell, Lamb’s old fellow clerk in the India House.”

A NEW EDITION OF (From New Plates)

LAMB’S ESSAYS OF ELIA.

_With 50 Pages of Introduction and Notes by_ ALFRED AINGER. _12mo, cloth gilt top. 550 pages. $1.50._

_N. Y. Christian Union_ says: “The value of this edition is very much increased by Mr. Ainger’s notes, which form by far the best commentary on Lamb that has been given to the world. Mr. Ainger is a thorough master of all information relating to Lamb and to his work; he has studied all the questions involved, looked up all manner of obscure and out-of-the-way facts, and gives the essays in some parts a much fresher meaning.”

THIS NEW EDITION includes Mr. Ainger’s Notes, of which “The Nation” says: “Are admirable. They fill nearly fifty pages, and CONTAIN A MASS OF INTERESTING INFORMATION ABOUT LAMB AND HIS WRITINGS AND HIS FRIENDS. Bibliographical details are given as to the first publication of the Essays in Magazines here and there. Many obscurities and allusions are explained, and many of Lamb’s mystifications are unveiled. Mr. Ainger has had the use of a key (in Lamb’s handwriting) to the various first series of the Essays.”

_Copies sent on receipt of price, charges prepaid, by_

A. C. Armstrong & Son, 714 Broadway, New York.

CHOICE STANDARD WORKS.

A NEW AND HANDSOME LIBRARY EDITION

OF

MILMAN’S COMPLETE WORKS,

_With Table of Contents and Full Indexes_.

IN 8 VOLS., CROWN 8VO, CLOTH.

PRICE, $12.00 PER SET. (Reduced from $24.50.)

(_Bound in Half Calf extra, $25.00 per set._)

THIS EDITION OF MILMAN’S WORKS, THOROUGHLY REVISED AND CORRECTED, COMPRISES

The History of the Jews, 2 Vols.
The History of Christianity, 2 Vols.
History of Latin Christianity, 4 Vols.

DR. MILMAN has won lasting popularity as a historian by his three great works, HISTORY OF THE JEWS, HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, and HISTORY OF LATIN CHRISTIANITY. These works link on to each other, and bring the narrative down from the beginning of all history to the middle period of the modern era. They are the work of the scholar, a conscientious student, and a Christian philosopher. DR. MILMAN prepared this new edition so as to give it the benefit of the results of more recent research. In the notes, and in detached appendices to the chapters, a variety of very important questions are critically discussed.

The author is noted for his calm and rigid impartiality, his fearless exposure of the bad and appreciation of the good, both in institutions and men, and his aim throughout, to utter the truth always in charity. The best authorities on all events narrated have been studiously sifted and their results given in a style remarkable for its clearness, force and animation.

MILMAN’S WORKS HAVE TAKEN THEIR PLACE AMONG THE APPROVED CLASSICS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. The general accuracy of his statements, the candor of his criticisms and the breadth of his charity are everywhere apparent in his writings. His search at all times seems to have been for truth, and that which he finds he states with simple clearness and with fearless honesty. HIS WORKS ARE IN THEIR DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AS VALUABLE AS THE VOLUMES OF GIBBON ARE IN SECULAR HISTORY. THEY DESERVE A PLACE IN EVERY LIBRARY IN THE LAND. THIS NEW EDITION, in 8 vols., contains AN AVERAGE OF OVER 900 PAGES per volume. PRICE, $12.00 PER SET, (Formerly published in 14 vols. at $24.50.)

_Sent on receipt of price, charges prepaid, by_

A. C. ARMSTRONG & SON, 714 Broadway, New York.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The author wrote the history of the fourth, fifth, and sixth crusades during the last usurpation of Buonaparte. [How easily an observant reader may tell when a book was published—the above note was, doubtless, written after Buonaparte’s failure.—TRANS.]

[2] Almélik-Alazoz, Emad-eddin Otsman. We have given the names of the Mussulman princes as the greater part of our historians write them; we shall take care to point out in notes how they are pronounced by Arabian authors.

[3] Alemélek Almansour, Nassir-eddin Mohammed.

[4] Almélek Aladel Seïf-eddin Aben-beer Mohammed.

[5] Aboulfeda and some other Arabian historians point out sufficiently succinctly the division that the Ayoubite princes made of the vast provinces that formed the empire of Saladin. This empire included Syria, Egypt, almost all Mesopotamia, and even a great portion of Arabia.

Aziz, as we have said, established himself in Egypt; Afdhal and Thaher shared Syria between them, one reigning at Damascus, and the other at Aleppo. Adel retained, as his part, the cities situated beyond the Euphrates, which composed the _eastern provinces_, that is, Mesopotamia proper. To these three great divisions were attached several feudatory princes, who governed as fiefs various cities of the empire. Hamah, Salamiak, Moanah, and Mambedj belonged to Mansour; it was from this branch that issued the celebrated Aboulfeda: the family of Chirkoùh was established at Emessa; Thaher, son of Saladin, enjoyed Bosra; Amdjed, great-grandson of Ayoub, was prince of Balbek; Chëizer, Abou Cobaïs, Sahyoun, Tell-Bacher, Kaubeb, Adjloun, Barin, Kafar-Tab, and Famieh were possessed by various emirs who had served in the armies of Saladin.

As to Yémen, a province of Arabia, in which Touran-chah established himself, the family of the Ayoubites reigned there till 1239.

[6] Almélek Alafdhal, Noureddin Ali.

[7] At the death of Saladin Jerusalem came into the possession of Afdhal, his son, who gave it in fief to the emir Azz-eddin Djerdik. Aziz becoming master of Damascus, the holy city fell into the hands of another emir, Ilm-eddin Caísser; to him succeeded Aboulhedj, the favourite of Adel; for in the division that this prince and his nephew Aziz made of Egypt and Syria, Palestine remained in the power of Adel. Aboul-Hédj was in his turn replaced by the famous emir Aksankar-el-Kébir, and he by Meïmoun, 1197. When the empire became reunited under the dominion of Adel, his son Moaddhem had Damascus, of which Palestine and Jerusalem were dependencies.

[8] This is the text of the oath, as it has been preserved by an historian:—“I, such a one, devote myself entirely from this moment to the service of the sultan Elmélek Alnaser Salak-eddin, as long as he shall live. I swear to consecrate my life, my property, my sword, and my powers to the defence of his empire, and to be always obedient to his orders. I swear to observe the same engagements after him to his son and heir Almélek Alafdhal. I swear to submit myself to him, to fight for his empire and states with my life, my wealth, my sword, and my troops. I swear to obey him in everything; I devote myself to him inwardly and outwardly, and I take God for a witness of this engagement.”

[9] This vizier was named Nasr-allah, and bore the surname of Dhiaeddin, ‘the splendour of religion;’ he was brother of the celebrated historian Ibn-Elatzir, author of the _Tarikh Kamel_, and himself cultivated letters with success. The study of most of the sciences occupied his youth, and his memory was adorned with the most beautiful passages of the ancient and modern poetry of his nation. Saladin had given him as vizier to his son, and Nasr-allah proved by his conduct that he was worthy of the honour. If he committed faults as a minister, he at least honoured his character by remaining faithful to his master, sharing his misfortunes, and following him into exile. After remaining some time at Samosata, whither Afdhal was banished, he came to Aleppo, and entered into the service of Thaher, who reigned there; and becoming dissatisfied with his conduct, he quitted the court, and retired to Mossoul, where he took up his residence. He died at Bagdad in 1239, whilst fulfilling a diplomatic mission with which the prince of Mossoul had charged him. Nasr-allah left several literary works, the nomenclature of which is contained in the biography of Ibn-Khilcan.

[10] M. Am. Jourdain has published a curious account of Aboulfeda and his family, the materials for which were supplied by the works themselves of this historian: it is printed in the fourteenth volume of _Les Annales des Voyages_, &c. of M. Malte Brun.

[11] The Hospitallers then possessed within the limits of Christendom _nineteen thousand manors_; the Templars had only _nine thousand_. Matthew Paris expresses himself thus:—Habent insuper Templarii in Christianitate novem millia maneriorum; Hospitalii vero novem decem, præter emolumenta et varios proventus ex fraternitatibus et prædicationibus provenientes, et per privilegia sua accrescentes.—_Matth. Paris.,_ ad annum 1244, in Henry III., lib. xi. p. 615. A manor in the middle ages _was the labour of one plough_.

[12] We possess two letters written by Celestine to Hubert, archbishop of Canterbury, to engage him to preach the crusade. The pope commands the archbishop to employ ecclesiastical censures against those who, after taking the cross, delayed their departure for the Holy Land; and to require such as could not possibly set out, to send, at their own expense, one or two men to fight against the infidels.

[13] This reminds us of the plans of conquest laid down by Pyrrhus, king of Epirus,—and of the traveller, who intended to perambulate the globe,—that he might, at the end of his wanderings, _plant cabbages in Hanover_.—TRANS.

[14] All the facts relative to the preaching of this crusade are to be found in Roger de Hoveden, Matthew Paris, Godfrey Moine, William of Newbridge, Otho of St. Blaise, and Arnold of Lubeck. The latter gives the most details; he does not fail to tell us that forty burgesses of Lubeck took the cross on this occasion.

[15] The long lists of the names and titles of the Crusaders may at first appear tiresome to the reader; but as each name represents a territory or an estate, the lists are, in fact, the best means of becoming thoroughly acquainted with the extent of this astonishing mania.—TRANS.

[16] Roger de Hoveden gives this account of the death of Henry of Champagne. Arnold of Lubeck says that this prince had placed himself at a window to take the air. The same Arnold adds that many thought that God had punished Henry for the regret he had evinced on the arrival of the Germans, whom he envied the glory of delivering the kingdom of Christ.

[17] We possess a very precious monument upon the battle of Sidon; it is a letter from the duke of Saxony, written to the archbishop of Cologne. The duke was present at the battle.

[18] Arnold, who gives an account of this message of the dove, appears to fear that it will not be believed. This is the manner in which he expresses himself in the third chapter:—Hic quiddam dicturus sum non ridiculum, sed ridiculè à gentibus tractum, qui quoniam sapientiores filiis iucis in generatione suâ sunt, multa excogitant, quæ nostrates non noverunt, nisi fortè ab eis didicerint. Solent enim ex untes ad quælibet negotia secum exportare columbas, quæ domi aut ova aut pullos noviter habent creates, et si in viâ fortè accelerare volunt nuncium, scriptas literas sub umbilico columbæ subtiliter ponunt, et eam avolare permittunt. Quæ cum ad suos fœtus properat, celeriter amicis desideratum nuncium apportat.

[19] The picture of Falcandus is perfectly prophetic, and describes events exactly like those which came after him. We will quote the most curious passages:—Intueri mihi jam videor turbulentas barbarorum acies, eo qua feruntur impetu irruentes, civitates opulentas et loca diuturnâ pace florentia metu concutere, cæde vastare, rapinis atterere, et fœdare luxuriâ. Ingerit se mihi, et lachrymas a nolente futuræ species calamitatis extorquet. Occurrunt hinc cives aut resistendo gladiis intercepti, aut se dedendo miserâ servitute depressi. Illine virgines in ipsis parentum conspectibus constupratæ; matronæ post varia et preciosa capitis, colli, et pectoris ornamenta direpta, ludibrio habitæ defixis in terrâ oculis inconsolabiliter deplorantes, venerabile fœdus conjugii fœdissimæ gentis libidine violari. Nec enim aut rationis ordine regi, aut miseratione deflecti, aut religione terreri Theutonica novit insania, quam et innatus furor exagitat, et rapacitas stimulat, et libido præcipitat. Hæc autem in Apuliâ vicinisque provinciis geri, licet horrendum ac triste sit facinus, et multo cum mœrore deflendum, utcunque tamen tolerabile putaretur, si in cispharinis tantum partibus barbarorum immanitas desæviret. Servire barbaris jam cogetur antiqua illa Corinthiorum nobilitas qui patriis olim relictis sedibus, in Siciliam transuentes, et urbi construendæ locum idoneum perquirentes, tandem in optimâ et pulcherrimâ parte Siciliæ inter inæquales portus mœnia sua loco tutissimo construxerunt. Quid tibi nunc prodest philosophorum quondam floruisse doctrinis, et poëtarum ora vatifici fontis nectare proluisse? satiùs tibi quidem esset ac tutiùs, Siculorum adhuc tyrannorum sævitiam pati, quam barbaræ fœdæque gentis tyrannidem experiri. Væ tibi fons celebris et præclari nominis Arethusa, quæ ad hanc devoluta est miseriam, ut quæ poëtarum solebas carmina modulari, nunc Theutonicorum ebrietatem mitiges, et eoram servias fœditati.—See _Historia Sicula_, ap. Muratori, vol. vii.

[20] Roger de Hoveden says that the Mussulman prince of Jerusalem had offered to deliver the city up to the Franks, and even to become a Christian. If the Mussulman prince had really made such a proposition, we cannot easily guess why the Christians should not have accepted it. But Roger is the only historian that mentions this perfectly incredible circumstance: Oriental historians are silent.

[21] Otho of St. Blaise says, that after the first crusade the Saracens had fortified Jerusalem:—Pagani summâ industriâ civitates et castella quæ obtinuerunt, muniverunt, et præcipuè Hyerusalem, duplici muro antemurali opposito, et fossatis profundissimus cingentes, inexpugnabilem reddiderunt, dato Christianis securissimo conductu visendi sepulcrum Dominicum, quæstûs gratiâ.—See _Oth. de St. Blaise_ ap. Urtii collect.

[22] Arnold of Lubec enters most fully into the details of this siege: this historian is almost our only guide in this part of our narrative. We have found some useful documents in the continuator of Tabary.

[23] After describing the corruption of the Crusaders, Arnold adds:—Veniam non peto, non enim ut quempiam confundam, hæc scribo, sed dilectos in Christo moneo.

[24] Oriental historians say little of the siege of Thoron; the continuator of Tabary expresses himself thus:—“The Franks attacked Tebnyn (Thoron), and made breaches on various sides. When Malek-Adel learnt this, he wrote to Melic-Alaziz, sultan of Egypt, to desire him to come in person; ‘for if you do not come,’ said he, ‘we shall not be able to protect the frontier country.’ Alaziz then came with his troops. As to the Mussulmans who were in the castle, when they saw the breaches made in their walls, and they had no hope but defending themselves at the point of the sword, many among them surrendered to the Franks, and demanded a safeguard for themselves and their property, offering to deliver up the castle. The command was given to the priest Kandelard (Conrad), a German; but a Frank of the Sahel (coast of Syria) said to the Mussulmans, ‘If you give up the fortress, these men will make you prisoners, and will kill you: preserve your own days then.’ The Mussulmans left them as if to give up the fortress; but when they had re-ascended, they persisted in defending themselves, and fought in despair, so that they kept the castle till the arrival of Melic-Alaziz at Ascalon.”

[25] Nec inter ista defuit spiritus procellæ, tonitruis et coruscationibus, et pluviarum inundationibus et grandine de cœlo fugientes infestandâ.—_Arnold Lub._ cap. 5.

[26] Otho de St. Blaise appears convinced that the Templars had received money to betray the cause of the Christians. He expresses himself as follows:—Nam sicut fertur, quidam de militibus Templi, à paganis corrupti pecuniâ, animam Conradi cancellarii, qui in hâc ipsâ obsidione præcipuè clarebat, cum quibusdam aliis inflexerunt, eisque auri maximo pondere collocato, obsidionem solvere persuaserunt; sicque vendito Christo tradito paganis per castellum, sicut olim Judæis, recesserunt. Nec tamen de pretio taliter acquisito aliquod emolumentum, sicut nec Judas de triginta argenteis, consecuti sunt. Si quidem pretio corrupti, corruptum à paganis aurum metallo sophistico, auro in superficie colorato receperunt; sicque in opprobrium sempiternum cum notâ infamiæ meritò consecuti sunt.—See _Oth. de St. Blaise_, in the collection of Urtius.

[27] We are astonished to find so little concerning this crusade in the continuator of William of Tyre. He speaks of this battle and of the division among the Christians, but without any circumstance worthy of being communicated to our readers.

[28] Arnold of Lubec says that the news of the death of the emperor of Germany arrived before the siege of Thoron; but it is not probable that the Crusaders, who were suddenly so anxious to return to the West on account of the troubles that threatened Germany, should have undertaken the siege of Thoron after hearing of a death which must give rise to great events in Europe. Henry died in the month of September, 1196; the siege of Thoron was begun nearly at the same time; thus the Crusaders could not be informed at that period of a circumstance which made them so suddenly renounce the holy war.

[29] Le Père Maimbourg bestows the greatest praise upon the widow of Bela. “This example,” says he, “makes apparent that which has often been seen in other princesses, that heroic virtue is not at all dependent on sex, and that it is possible to make up for weakness of temperament and body by greatness of soul and strength of mind.”

[30] Fuller, an English historian, speaks of this disaster at great length. As his work is scarce, I will translate the passage from it relative to this crusade, in which the impartial reader will find the gross misrepresentations of a violent enemy of the Crusaders. “In this war,” says he, “we may contemplate an episcopal army which might have served for a synod; or, more truly, it offers us a picture of the _Church militant_. Many captains returned home secretly, and when the soldiers wanted to fight, the officers went away: what remained of this army fortified themselves in Jaffa. The feast of St. Martin, that great saint of Germany, fell at this time. This holy man, a German by birth, and bishop of Tours in France, distinguished himself eminently by his charity. The Germans changed his charity for the poor into excess for themselves, observing the 11th of November in such a manner that it ought no longer to be called a saint’s day, but a day of festivity. Drunkenness reduced them to such a state, that the Turks, falling upon them, killed more than twenty thousand of them. This day, which the Germans write in red letters in their calendars, takes its colour from their own blood, and as their camp was a slaughter-house, the Turks were their butchers. We may compare them to the oxen of St. Martin, which differ little from droves of drunkards.”—_Nicol. Fuller_, b. ii. chap. xvi. p. 133. [I really cannot see that old Fuller is so very widely wrong.—TRANS.]

[31] This is the picture of the Germans in the chronicle of Usperg:—Bellicosi, crudeles, expensarum prodigi, rationis expertes, voluntatem pro jure habentes, ensibus invicti; in nullis, nisi hominibus suæ gentis confidentes; ducibus suis fidelissimi, et quibus vitam citiùs quam fidem posses auferre.

[32] The Latin and Greek chronicles both describe the cruelties of Henry VI. in Sicily. Nicetas, in his history, makes a long enumeration of the punishments invented by the emperor of Germany, and says that Greece was on the eve of seeing all the evils that afflicted Sicily fall upon her territory, when Henry VI. was removed, as if by an extraordinary interposition of Providence.

[33] We shall see in the end that Sicily cost Frederick II., but particularly young Conrad, the last prince of the family of Swabia, much embarrassment and many misfortunes.

[34] Our excellent author has conceived a kind of parental affection for the crusades, which makes him blind to their defects. If we speak of the _spirit_ of Christianity, certainly the philosopher of Geneva has the advantage of him, as his own pages show. Divested of their mundane motives, the crusades were little else than “a savage fanaticism.” There was, at least, as much religious merit in the Mussulmans, who fought to defend their faith. A philosopher may deduce beneficial results from the crusades, particularly to Europe; but he will be much puzzled to prove that that which we now consider a truly Christian spirit, influenced many of the warriors that carried them out, or the churchmen that promoted them. The Inquisition and the crusade against the Albigeois were of the same age, and the principal agents in them equally prostituted the name of religion in their horrors.—TRANS.

[35] We have a life of Innocent III. which extends to the thirteenth year of his pontificate. This life, _Gesta Innocentii_, is the more valuable from being written by a contemporary.

[36] We may consult, for the preachings of this crusade, the letters of Innocent III. Some details will be found in Roger de Hoveden, Matthew Paris, &c. &c.

[37] Villehardouin expresses himself thus when speaking of the indulgences of the pope:—Por ce cil pardon fut issi grand, si s’en emeurent mult li cuers des genz, et mult s’en croisièrent, porce que li pardon ne si grand. (The pardon was so great that the hearts of people were moved, and many took the cross because the pardon was so great, or complete.)

[38] Gretser has spoken at great length of the indulgences granted to the Crusaders.—_De Cruce_, vol. iii. b. ii. c. 3.

[39] The _Chronicle_ of St. Victor speaks thus of Foulques de Neuilly:—Et verba ejus quasi sagittæ potentis acutæ, hominum pravâ corda consuetudine obdurata penetrarent et ad lacrymas et pœnitentiam amolirent.

[40] If we may believe contemporary chronicles, Foulques addressed Richard Cœur de Lion, and said to him,—“You have three daughters to dispose of in marriage, Avarice, Pride, and Luxury.” “Well,” replied Richard, “I give my pride to the Templars, my avarice to the monks of Citeaux, and my luxury to the bishops.” This anecdote is quoted by Rigord.

[41] The Latin history of the diocese of Paris thus designates the prostitutes—Multæ mulierculæ quæ corpore quæstum faciebant.

[42] Alberic, Rigord, Otho of St. Blaise, James of Vitri, the manuscript chronicle _Autore Radulfo Coggehalensi_, the _Chronicle_ of Brompton, and Marin Sanul, have left particulars of the life of Foulques. The _Ecclesiastical History_ of Fleury, vol. xvi., has collected all the materials scattered about in the old chronicles. The Abbé Lebeuf, in his _History of Paris_, quotes a _Life of Foulques_, 1 vol. in 12mo. Paris, 1620, which we have in vain endeavoured to procure.

[43] The monk Gunther gives some account of this sermon in the history he has left us of the conquest of Constantinople. The monk Gunther bestows the warmest praise upon Martin Litz, who was his abbot, and gives curious details of the sermons of the latter. He puts into the mouth of the preacher of the crusade a discourse in which we find the same reasons, and almost the same words, as in all the discourses of those who had previously preached holy wars; it is probable that the people were more affected by the spirit that reigned in Europe than by the eloquence of the orators.—See Gunther, in the _Collection_ of Canisius.

[44] The castle of Ecry was situated on the river Aisne, not far from _Château Porcien_.

[45] The author of a _History of Jerusalem_, who wrote in the twelfth century, says, when speaking of the Champenois:—Et quædam pars Franciæ, quæ Campania dicitur, et cùm regio tota studiis armorum floreat, hæc quodam militiæ privilegio singulariùs excellit et præcellit; hinc martia pubes potenter egressa, vires quæ in tyrociniis exercitaverat, in hostem ardentiùs exerit, et imaginaria bellorum prolusione proposita, pugnans animos ad verum martem intendit.

[46] The name of Villehardouin took its origin from a village or castle of the diocese of Troye, between Bar and Arcy; the elder branch, to which the historian belonged, only subsisted to 1400; the younger, which acquired the principality of Achaia, merged in the family of Savoy. Ducange has left a very long historical notice of the genealogy of this family.

[47] Complures tantâ pontificii indulgentissimi gratiâ illecti, et Fulconis persuasionibus excitati, rubram crucem amiculo, quo dexter humerus tegitur, certatim consuere.—_Rhamnusius de Bell. Constant._ lib. i.

[48] Rhamnusius gives a very minute list of the knights and barons that took the cross. Le Père d’Outreman likewise gives a very extensive list. In the notes that accompany the history of Villehardouin, Ducange has left us many curious particulars upon the knights and barons of Flanders and Champagne who took part in this crusade.

[49] Villehardouin has preserved the names of the six deputies. The Count Thibault named two: Geoffrey of Villehardouin, Miles of Brabant. Baldwin of Flanders, two others: Canon de Bethune, and Alard de Maqueriaux; and the count of Blois, two: Jean de Friaise and Gauthier de Goudonville.

[50] Innocent III. said of the republic of Venice: Quæ non agriculturis inservit, sed navigiis potiùs et mercimoniis est intenta.—See the first book of the _Collection of the Letters of Innocent_.

[51] Nicetas says in his history, that Dandolo was styled “The Prudent of the Prudent.”

[52] Several historians say that Dandolo was blind, and that the emperor Manuel Comnenus had deprived him of sight during an abode he made at Constantinople. One of his descendants, André Dandolo, says merely in his history that his ancestor was short-sighted (_visu debilis_). The part of the story connected with Manuel Comnenus appears to be a fable. Historians differ as to the age of Dandolo: Ducange, at the period of the crusade, gives him ninety-four years. Gibbon does not doubt of his blindness, though he has no faith in its having been caused by Manuel; but he certainly assigns to him actions that could scarcely be performed by a blind man. He does not believe the accounts of his very advanced age, saying,—“It is scarcely possible that the powers of mind and body should support themselves at such an age.”—TRANS.

[53] Weight of Cologne or Geneva. See the terms of the treaty.

[54] The Venetians undertook, in the treaty, to distribute to each individual of the army of the Crusaders, six setiers of bread, corn, wheat, or vegetables, and half a pitcher (_demi-cruche_) of wine; for each horse three bushels, Venetian measure, and water in sufficient quantities. We are not able to value the six setiers of corn, or the half-pitcher of wine, having no means of ascertaining the Venetian measures.

[55] The original treaty may be seen in the _Chronicle_ of Andrew Dandolo, pages 325, 328 of vol. xii. of Muratori.

[56] From the thirteenth century the aristocracy began at Venice to get the better of the democracy.—See _History of Venice_, by Laugier.

[57] Several authors have thought that Villehardouin could not write; and they found their opinion upon what he himself says,—“_I, who dictated this work_.” However that may be, the history of Villehardouin has been pronounced by learned men to be a model of the language that has ceased to be French. In the sixteenth century the language of the marshal of Champagne was already not understood; his history was turned into modern French by Blaise de Vigenère towards the end of the sixteenth century; this translation has itself become so old as to be now scarcely intelligible. The new version that Ducange made of it in the seventeenth century still bears an impression of antiquity, which preserves something of the _naïveté_ of the original. We shall often have occasion to quote Villehardouin; but we shall only quote the ancient versions, and sometimes from a translation we have ourselves made, always endeavouring to preserve as far as possible the simplicity of the old language.

[58] Gibbon says, “A reader of Villehardouin must observe the frequent tears of the marshal and his brother knights; they weep on every occasion of grief, joy, or devotion.”—TRANS.

[59] Maintenant li six messagers s’ageneuillent à la pies mull plorant.—_Villehardouin_, lib. i.

[60] Persuasum omnes habent, solos Venetos mari, Gallos terrâ præpotentes esse.—_Rhamn._ lib. i.

[61] Vigenère, the translator of Villehardouin, informs us that in his time the treaty between the Venetians and the French, concluded in the month of April, 1201, was still preserved in the Chancery of Venice.

[62] The author of the _History of the Republics of Italy_ recapitulates thus the sum that was due to the Venetians by the Crusaders:—

For four thousand five hundred horses, at four }
marks per horse } 18,000
For the knights, at two marks per knight 9,000
For twenty thousand foot-soldiers, at two marks }
per soldier } 40,000
For two squires per horse, nine thousand squires 18,000
———
Total marks 85,000
———

Eighty-five thousand marks of silver are equal to four millions two hundred and fifty thousand francs.

[63] Thibault was buried in the church of St. Stephen of Troyes; his epitaph finishes with these verses:—

Terrenam quærens, cœlestem repperit urbem;
Dum procul hæc potitur, obviat ille domi.

[64] The _History of Burgundy_ by Courtépée and Béguillet has here committed a great error in making Eudes III. set out on the crusade, and take a part in the capture of Constantinople.

[65] Villehardouin makes thus the eulogy of Boniface, marquis of Montferrat:—“The marquis Boniface is, as every one knows, a very valorous prince, and most esteemed for knowledge of war and feats of arms of any one at the present day living.”

[66] At the same time that Egypt experienced all the horrors of famine, Richard of St. Germain and the Chronicle of Fossa-Nova (see _Muratori_) say that a great dearth was felt in Italy and Spain; one of them adds that this year, 1202, was known under the name of “annus famis.” Mézerai speaks of this famine, which was felt in France, and attributes it to the war then carried on between Philip and Richard. “The two kings,” says he, “pillaged the lands, pulled up their vines, cut down the trees, cut the harvest whilst unripe, and destroyed more cities and towns in one day than had been built in ages. Famine followed these horrible ravages, says an author; so that many of the richest were reduced to beg their bread, and finding none to give it to them, ate grass and burrowed in the earth for roots.”

[67] The pope was satisfied with liberating the Crusaders from the usurious debts which they owed to the Jews. At that period all interest upon money lent was considered usury.

[68] Jacques of Vitri, when speaking of the suspicions and murmurs that arose against Foulques of Neuilly, expresses himself thus:—Et crescente pecuniâ, timor et reverentia decrescebant.

[69] The Abbé Lebeuf, in his _History of the Diocese of Paris_, vol. vi. p. 20, gives us a description of the tomb of Foulques of Neuilly, which was still standing in the last century. “The tomb of Foulques, the famous curé of this place about the year 1200, is in the nave, before the entrance to the choir, built of stone a foot and a half high. It is the work of the age in which this pious personage died. Foulques is represented in relief upon the monument, clothed as a priest, his head bare, having the tonsure on the top, and the hair so short that the whole of his ears is visible. A book is laid upon his breast, which he does not hold, as his hands are crossed above, the right placed upon the left. His chasuble and his manipule represent the vestments of his times. He has under him a kind of footstool, cut in the stone, and two angels in relief incense his head, which is placed towards the west; for, after the ancient manner, his feet are pointed to the east, or the altar. It is not true, as has been said, that this tomb is incensed, nor has it any arms. He is called in the country Sir Foulques, and sometimes Saint Sire Foulques. There is a tradition that the canons of St. Maur formerly endeavoured to carry it away; but the immobility of the car with which this story is adorned, tells us what degree of faith may be attached to it.” M. l’Abbé Chastelain names his death, in his _Universal Martyrology_, as having taken place on the 2nd of March, 1201, and qualifies him as _venerable_.

[70] Villehardouin says, when speaking of the arrival of the Crusaders at Venice, “No nobler people were ever seen, nor better appointed, nor more disposed to do something good for the honour of God and the service of Christendom.”

[71] Upon the sojourn of the Crusaders at Venice, _Gesta Innocentii_, Villehardouin and Ducange, Sanuti, Hérold, D’Outreman, Fleury, _Histoire Ecclésiastique_, vol. xviii., l’Abbé Langier, &c. &c., may be consulted.

[72] Then might be seen so many beautiful and rich vessels of gold and silver heaped up here and there, and carried to the hotel of the duke as part of their payment.—_Villehardouin._

[73] The Venetians might have said, and no doubt did say on this occasion, that the king of Hungary had taken the cross many years before, and had done nothing yet towards the fulfilment of his vow. Andrew did not set out for Palestine till many years after the taking of Constantinople.

[74] The monk Gunther does not at all spare the Venetians, and reproaches them bitterly with having diverted the Crusaders from their holy enterprise. The pious resolution of the leaders of the crusade, says he, was subverted by the perfidy and wicked artifices of these masters of the Adriatic,—fraude et nequitiâ Venetorum.

[75] With the true spirit of an antiquary, M. Michaud delights in throwing a character of the “olden time” into the language of Villehardouin, which is in a degree effective in the French, but is with much difficulty conveyed into English.—TRANS.

[76] Irene, the daughter of Isaac, had been affianced to William, son of Tancred, king of Sicily; being taken into Germany, with the rest of the family of Tancred, she had married Philip of Swabia.

[77] Villehardouin and Gunther give very circumstantial details of the siege of Zara, and of the debates that followed it. (See also, on the subject of these debates, the letters of Innocent.) The Abbé Fleury, in the sixteenth volume of his _Ecclesiastical History_, displays sufficiently the spirit that then actuated the Crusaders. M. Lebeau, in the twentieth volume of the _History of the Lower Empire_, and the Abbé Laugier, in the second volume of his _History of Venice_, say a great deal concerning the siege of Zara.