Chapter XXVIII: Appendix: No. 1.—Page 2, Vol. I (8)

“Could the resistance of Cairo,” says Leibnitz, “alone prevent France from raising itself above all glory past or present? It would be disgraceful for so powerful a nation, when engaged in such a mighty enterprise, to entertain a moment’s doubt of final success in presence of this last obstacle. For France would not be fighting then for either Dunkirk or Gravelines, or for Maëstricht; but for the dominion of the seas, for the empire of the East, for the overthrow of the Port, and for universal supremacy;—all results from the conquest of Egypt.”

Then follow some geographical details upon the coast of Syria, and the ports and cities of that country; that is to say, El-Aresch, Byblos, Tripoli, Alexandretta, Aleppo, and Damascus.

“Alexandretta commands the defiles of Cilicia. By the possession of this place, an army marching from Asia Minor upon Palestine could be forced to make a long and painful circuit, across a country half desert, and across portions of Cilicia, Armenia, and Mesopotamia.

“Aleppo and Damascus are the only cities capable of resisting for a moment our ulterior operations after the reduction of Cairo. Although they are distant from the sea, they must be secured, since then we shall command all the country on this side of Mount Amanus.

“The Turks may, it is true, if they are warned, place reinforcements in Egypt, and even fortify Alexandria and render Egypt nearly inaccessible. It will therefore be essential to preserve the most profound secrecy upon the project, and accelerate the departure of the armament for its destination. When the expedition shall be once made, it will be no longer in the power of the Turks to place an obstacle in the way of its success, since the departure of so formidable a fleet will give alarm for the seat of government itself. Under this point of view it will be even useful to spread a report that it is in fact destined against Constantinople, in order that the Port should unite and concentrate, for the protection of the capital, its divided forces, and thus render the distant provinces the weaker. The French army being thus suddenly thrown into Egypt, it would require six months for the Turks to assemble an equal force, or even a much longer time, if Turkey were at the same time engaged in a Polish or Hungarian war. Moreover, as soon as the expedition should have succeeded, Persia, which cannot declare itself upon our promises alone, will not fail to rise likewise. And if the expedition took place in that season of the year which, according to the opinion of experienced persons, would appear the most suitable, it would be absolutely impossible for the Turks to arrive in any useful time, if even they had 100,000 disposable forces; because Egypt would be then inundated with the waters of the Nile, in which our fleet would dominate; and because the Turkish army could not set out on its march before the following winter, &c.

“Suppose now that Egypt should be in our power, and, which is not at all improbable, the Turks should find themselves at peace with all their neighbours, that there should be no trouble among themselves, and that they should be in a condition to advance with 100,000 effective men; suppose, on the other side, that we were only able to oppose this force with 30,000 men, since we must leave 20,000 behind, to maintain our position in Egypt, and reduce the places not yet subdued: I affirm that these 30,000 men would be sufficient to repulse the Turks: let us add, that if measures be well taken, there is no doubt that considerable reinforcements might arrive from Europe, and that the Christian subjects of the Port, as well as the natives, would flock eagerly to range themselves under our Banners. But suppose our force did not exceed 30,000 men, this troop would be perfectly in a state to resist the Turks by two different manœuvres, whether by waiting for them in the plains of Egypt, between Suez and Cairo; or whether in marching forward to meet them in Arabia Petræa, between Gaza and the mountains, or in Syria between Alexandretta and Mount Amanus, called now the mount of Scanderoun, or El Lucan.

“There are in Arabia Petræa three narrow defiles, through which the caravans pass on their way from Egypt into Asia. One of these defiles is on the right, when we are coming from Egypt, and leads to the eastern shores of the Red Sea; another passage is on the left, on the shores of the Mediterranean,—it leads into Palestine and Syria; the third, situated between the two preceding ones, comes out at Mount Horeb, and at the monastery of St. Catherine. The two first passages lead into Arabia, where no army could penetrate without great difficulty. There only remains then the third route, which goes from Egypt into Palestine, across Idumea. But this passage is so narrowed on one side by the Mediterranean Sea, and on the other by the foot of the mountains of Arabia Petræa, that the sultan of Egypt would easily have expelled the army of Selim from his country, if he had taken care to secure the passage between Syria and Cilicia: it was by neglecting this precaution that Darius very much facilitated the conquest of Asia by Alexander. If the sultan of the Mamelukes, abandoning Palestine, had taken up a position in the narrow strait near Gaza, or near Sihor (called in Scripture the river of Egypt), which is a species of hollow ravine, running from the mountains to the sea, and if he had there awaited his enemy, it is certain that in that position, 30,000 men would have been able to resist hundreds of thousands.

“Suppose the Turks were able to force not only the passage of Alexandretta, but likewise that of Gaza, they yet could not recover Egypt; for, in this case, our army would keep in its rear the Nile and a very fertile country, whilst the enemy would have nothing in their rear but the deserts of Arabia. And if, in this position, we were to avoid a pitched battle, which would be easy from the nature of the country, the Turkish army would necessarily waste away, and would be forced, by want of provisions, to retire into Syria, and leave us in the tranquil enjoyment of our conquests.”

Leibnitz brings several historical facts to the support of his opinion; he proves that the Turks are much less formidable, less warlike, less numerous than they formerly were; he enters into details upon the seraglio, the revenues, and the military and maritime establishments of the Ottoman empire.

The author assigns reasons for hoping that, after the first news of the success of Louis XIV., there would ensue partial revolts, and then a general insurrection of the pachas, the civil functionaries, the soldiers, the Christians, and finally of the whole people. “I venture to affirm,” says he, “that all the subjects of the Ottoman empire are unhappy, discontented, anxious for change, and that at this moment they are only restrained by the disheartening remembrance of their former attempts to throw off the yoke.

“A French author, very well acquainted with the affairs of Turkey, and who is surprised that an empire so constituted subsists so long, forms the conjecture that God, who does everything for the best, had raised and sustained this powerful nation for the good of his Church, and to punish Christians for their sins and vices;’ but I,” continues Leibnitz,—“I am convinced that the time approaches in which the Omnipotent will visit his people, in which the fury of barbarians will be at an end, in which a far happier epoch will open on the Christian world. Much might be said with regard to prophecies; upon periods in human affairs; upon the inevitable catastrophes of empires; even upon the traditions of the Turks themselves, which make them look for their destruction from a country between two seas. This prediction has been commonly applied to Constantinople, and sometimes to the Morea; but no one has hitherto thought of Egypt.

“Let us, however, without presuming to penetrate the secrets of destiny, draw our conclusions from the ordinary course of affairs. It is notorious that the Sultan has entirely lost, in the opinion of his subjects, his character of inviolability, and this circumstance must necessarily facilitate his defeat.”

All that follows this is but a picture of the disorder which reigns in the political organization of the Turkish empire. Therefore, Leibnitz thinks that the conquest of Egypt would shake the Port to its foundation. He adds: “_Audaciter dico, flagrabit Turcia seditionibus, si volumus_; and if the Port were at the same time engaged in a war with Poland or Hungary, _jam ruina ipsa_,” says he, “_et totius corporis paralysis universalis indubitata est_.”

_No. 39._

_Capitulations between France and the Ottoman Port._

Francis I. was the first of our kings who made treaties with the Port. He obtained in 1535, from Soliman the Canonist, the first capitulations in favour of commerce and of the Catholic religion, in the states of the Grand Seignor; in 1604, Henry IV. obtained from the Sultan Ahmid I. the renewal of them with some additions; in 1675 they were renewed and augmented under the reign of the Sultan Mehemed IV., at the demand of Louis XIV.; in 1740, Louis XV. obtained from the Sultan Mahmoud the renewal of the ancient treaties, with considerable additions.

France has had since that period other negotiations with the Port; but these negotiations have not produced any treaty, the dispositions of which are either new or important. The documents necessary for the history of the relations of France with the Ottoman empire have always been carefully preserved in the chancery of the French embassy at Constantinople. It is there we must search for exact notices to add to that which we have been able to advance upon this question.

We will give, from these capitulations, as much as particularly concerns the subject of our history, or which may throw a light upon the Ottoman policy.

“The Emperor Sultan Mahmoud, son of Sultan Moustapha, ever victorious.[179]

“Here is that which ordains this glorious and imperial signature, conqueror of the world, this noble and sublime mark, whose efficacy proceeds from divine aid.

“I, who by the excellence of the favours of the Most High, and by the eminence of the miracles filled with blessings from the chief of the prophets (to whom be the most ample salutations, as well as to his family and his companions), am the Sultan of glorious sultans, the emperor of puissant emperors, the distributor of crowns to the Cosroes, who are seated on thrones, the shadow of God upon earth, the servant of the two illustrious cities of Mecca and Medina, august and holy places, to which Mussulmans address their vows; the protector and master of the holy Jerusalem; the sovereign of the three great cities of Constantinople, Adrianople, and Broussa, as well as of Damascus, the odour of Paradise; of Tripoli, of Syria, of Egypt, the wonder of ages, and renowned for its delights; of all Arabia; of Africa, of Cairovan, of Aleppo, of Irak, Arab, and Adgen; of Bassora, of Lahra, of Dilem, and particularly of Bagdad, capital of the caliphs; of Rakka, of Mossoul, of Chehregour, of Diarbeker, of Zulkadric, of Ergerum the Delightful; of Sebarta, of Adana, of Caramenia, of Kars, of Ichidder, of Van, of the isles of the Morea, of Candia, of Cyprus, Chio, and Rhodes; of Barbary, of Ethiopia; of the places of war, Algiers, Tripoli, and Tunis; of the isles and the coasts of the White Sea and of the Black Sea; of the countries of Natolia, and the kingdom of Romelia; of all Kurdestan, of Greece, of Turkomania, of Tartary, of Circassia, of Cabarta, and of Georgia; of the noble tribes of the Tartars, and of all the hordes which depend upon them; of Caffa, and other surrounding places; of all Bosnia and its dependencies; of the fortress of Belgrade, a place of war; of Servia, as well as of the fortresses and castles existing in it; of the countries of Albania, of all Wallachia, of Moldavia, and of the forts and holds which are in these cantons; possessor besides of a number of cities and fortresses, of which it is superfluous to repeat or boast the names. I, who am emperor, asylum of justice and king of kings, the centre of victory, Sultan, son of the Sultan, Emperor Mahmoud the conqueror, son of Sultan Mustafa, son of Sultan Muhammed: I, who by my power, the origin of facility, am adorned with the title of emperor of the two lands, and as a crowning grandeur to my caliphate, am illustrated by the title of emperor of the two seas.

“The glory of the great princes of the faith of Jesus, the elect of the great and the magnificent of the religion of the Messiah, the arbitrator and mediator in the affairs of Christian nations, clothed with true marks of dignity and honour, filled with grandeur, with glory and majesty, the emperor of France, and of other vast kingdoms which depend upon it, our very magnificent, very honoured, sincere, and ancient friend, Louis XV., to whom God grant all success and felicity, having sent to our august court, which is the seat of the caliphate, a letter containing evidences of the most perfect sincerity, and of the most particular affection, candour, and uprightness, and the same letter being destined for our Sublime Port of felicity, which, by the infinite goodness of the incontestably majestic Supreme Being, is the abode of sultans the most magnificent, of emperors the most respectable; the model of Christian nobles, skilful, prudent, esteemed, and honoured minister, Louis Sauveur, marquis de Villeneuve, your present counsellor of state, and your ambassador to our Port of felicity (may the end of which be crowned with good fortune), having demanded permission to present and remit the said letter, which has been granted to him by our imperial consent, conformably with the ancient usages of our court; and consequently the said ambassador having been admitted to the foot of our imperial throne, surrounded with the light of glory, he has there delivered the said letter, and has been the representative of your majesty, in participating our imperial grace and favour; the translation of its friendly tenor was afterwards presented and reported, according to the ancient customs of the Ottomans, at the foot of our sublime throne, by the channel of the very honoured Elhadjy Mehemed Pacha, our first minister, the absolute interpreter of our ordinances, the ornament of the world, the support of the good order of nations, the orderer of the grades of our empire, the instrument of the glory of our crown, the channel for the favours of royal majesty, the very virtuous Grand Vizier, my venerable and fortunate minister and lieutenant-general, of whose power and prosperity may God perpetuate the triumph!

“And as the expressions of this friendly letter make known the desire and eagerness of your majesty to preserve, as heretofore, all the honours and ancient friendship, hitherto maintained from time immemorial between our glorious ancestors (may the light of God be upon them), and the very magnificent emperors of France; and as in the said letter there is question, in consideration of the sincere friendship and the particular attachment that France has always evinced towards our imperial house, again to renew, during the happy period of our glorious reign, and to strengthen and enlighten, by the addition of some articles, the imperial capitulations, already renewed in the year of the Hegyra 1084, under the reign of the late Sultan Mehemed, our august grandfather, noble and generous during his life, and happy in his death; which capitulations had for object, _that the ambassadors, consuls, interpreters, merchants, and other subjects of France, should be protected and maintained in all peace and tranquillity_,[180] and it has at length arrived at our imperial knowledge that these points have been conferred upon by the said ambassador and the minister of the Sublime Port: the foundations of the friendship which, from time immemorial, has subsisted with firmness between the court of France and our Sublime Port, and the convincing proofs which your majesty has given of it, particularly during our glorious reign, giving reason to hope that the ties of such a friendship can only be drawn closer, and become stronger from day to day; these motives have inspired us with sentiments conformable with your desires; and wishing to procure activity in commerce, and security to goers and comers, which are the fruits such a friendship ought to produce; we not only confirm by these presents in their full extent, the ancient and renewed capitulations, as well as the articles concerted at the above date, but to procure more ease for our merchants and greater vigour in commerce, we have granted them exemption from the right of _Mezeterie_, which they have paid at all times, as well as several other points concerning commerce, and the safety of comers and goers, which have been discussed, treated of, and regulated, in good and due form, in the divers conferences which have been held upon the subject, between the said ambassador, furnished with sufficient power, and the persons deputed on the part of our Sublime Port. After the entire conclusion of all, my supreme and absolute Grand Vizier, having rendered an account of it to our imperial Stirrup, and it being our will to show specially on this occasion the value and esteem that we entertain for the ancient and constant friendship of the emperor of France, who has just given us fresh and particular marks of the sincerity of his heart, we have granted our sign imperial for the execution of the articles newly concluded, and consequently of the ancient and renewed capitulations; having been transcribed and reported exactly, word for word from the commencement, and followed by the articles newly regulated and granted; these present imperial capitulations have been placed and consigned, in the above-said order, in the hands of the aforesaid ambassador.”

Articles 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 of the capitulations contain what follows:—“As inimical nations, who have no positive ambassadors at my Port of felicity, formerly went and came in our states, under the banner of the emperor of France, whether for commerce, whether for pilgrimage, according to the imperial permission they had had for it under the reigns of our ancestors of glorious memory, as likewise it was granted by the ancient capitulations accorded to the French: and as afterwards, for certain reasons, the entrance to our states was positively prohibited to these same nations, and they were even withdrawn from the said capitulations; nevertheless, the emperor of France having evinced by the letter he has sent to our Port of felicity, that he should wish that the inimical nations, to whom trading in our states has been forbidden, might have liberty to come and go to Jerusalem, in the same manner as they were accustomed to go and come, without being in any way interrupted; and that if consequently it were permitted them to come and traffic in our states, it should be under the banner of France, as formerly, the demand of the emperor of France has been complied with, in consideration of the ancient friendship, which from the times of my glorious ancestors has subsisted, from father to son, between your majesty and the Sublime Port, and we have issued an imperial edict, of which the following is the tenor:—That the Christian and inimical nations which are at peace with the emperor of France, and who shall desire to visit Jerusalem, may go thither and return, within the boundaries of their state, in the customary manner, and in full liberty and security, without any person causing them trouble or impediment; and if it should afterwards prove convenient to grant to the said nations the liberty of trading in our states, they will then go and come under the banner of the emperor of France as formerly, without being allowed to go and come under any other banner.

“The ancient imperial capitulations, which have been in the hands of the French since the reigns of my magnificent ancestors to the present day, and which have just been reported in detail above, having been now renewed with an addition of some new articles, conformably with the imperial order, issued in virtue of my khatt-cherif; the first of these articles declares, that the bishops dependent upon France, and the other ecclesiastics who profess the French religion, of whatever nation or race they may be, as long as they shall keep within the limits of their state, shall not be troubled in the exercise of their functions in those parts of our empire where they have been long settled.

“The French ecclesiastics who, according to ancient custom, are established within and without the city of Jerusalem, in the church of the Holy Sepulchre called Kamama, shall not be disturbed in the places of visitation which they inhabit, and which are in their hands, which shall remain still in their hands as formerly, without being disturbed in that respect, or by the imposition of tributes; and should any dispute arise, which cannot be decided on the spot, it shall be sent to my Sublime Port.

“The French, or those who depend upon them, of whatever nation or quality they may be, who desire to go to Jerusalem, shall not be molested either in going or returning.

“The two religious orders which are at Galata, that is to say, the Jesuits and the Capuchins, having two churches there, which have been in their hands _ab antiquo_, they shall remain in their hands, and they shall retain the possession and the advantages of them: and as one of these churches has been burnt, it shall be rebuilt as justice requires, and it shall remain, as formerly, in the hands of the Capuchins, without molestation or disturbance. There shall be no uneasiness entertained with regard to the churches the French have at Smyrna, Seyda, Alexandria, and other _Echelles_; and no money shall be required of them under any pretence.

“The French shall not be disturbed, when, within the bounds of their own quarter, they read the Gospel in their hospital of Galata.”

Several of these dispositions not having been strictly executed, the Port renewed them in 1740; this is the renewal, as it is expressed in article 82.

“When the places, of which the ecclesiastics dependent upon France have possession at Jerusalem, as has been mentioned in the articles solemnly granted and now renewed, shall be in want of repair, to prevent the ruin to which they would be exposed by the course of time, it shall be permitted to grant, at the request of the ambassador of France, residing at my Port of felicity, orders for their being repaired in a way conformable to justice; and the cadis, commandants, and other officers, shall not be allowed to throw any impediment in the way of the things granted by order; and as it has happened that our officers, under pretext of having made secret repairs in the said places, made many visits in the course of the year, and extorted money from the ecclesiastics, we command that, on the part of the cadis, commandants, and other officers who may be there, there shall be only one visit made in the year to the church of the place that is called the Sepulchre of Jesus; and the same in the other churches and places of visitation. The bishop and ecclesiastics dependent upon the emperor of France, who are in my empire, shall be protected as long as they confine themselves to the limits of their own state, and nobody shall prevent them from performing their rites according to their own customs, in the churches which are in their hands, as well as in the other places in which they dwell: and when our tributary subjects and the French shall go and come among one another, for the purpose of buying, selling, or other affairs, they shall not be molested, against the same laws, on account of this intercourse; and as it is decreed in the preceding stipulated articles that they shall be allowed to read the Scriptures in the hospital of Galata, and this has, nevertheless, not been done, we order, that in whatever place that hospital may for the future be, in a juridical form, they may be allowed to read the Scripture there, as is their duty, without any inquietude upon the subject.”

The capitulations or treaties with the Port are too extensive to allow us to give them entirely here. The articles, which amount to eighty-five, regulate the rights of persons and the commercial privileges of which the Port has granted the enjoyment to all the French established or travelling in the countries of its domination; they regulate also the diplomatic relations between the two powers, and the prerogatives of the ambassadors of the king of France.

_No. 40._

_Note by M. Raynouard upon the Work by M. Hammer, entitled_ Mysterium Baphometi Revelatum, _&c._

Since the proscription of the knights of the Temple and the abolition of the order, five hundred years had passed away, when accusations, evidences, and judgments, were again submitted to the revision of history;—the renown of the order and the memory of the knights are again reëstablished in the opinion of impartial persons.

A new adversary of the Templars presented himself, and setting aside the accusations which contemporary persecutors had imagined, invented other crimes. In spite of the interval of time, he boasted of being able to produce material proofs: “There is no need of words,” says M. Hammer, “when stones serve as witnesses.”

What are these monuments with which the persons who prepared and achieved the ruin of the Templars were unacquainted, or which they neglected? How did they escape the industrious perquisitions of the envy, hatred, and sagacity of the inquisitors? Why did not the divers apostates, who, from ambition or fear, gave evidence against the order, point out monuments which then would have been more numerous and more striking, and whose existence might have justified their shameful desertion? And when the churches and houses of the Templars were occupied by successors who had so much interest in procuring pardon for the rigour of the spoliation, how was it that none of these successors discovered these material proofs, which, according to M. Hammer, proclaim to the present day the apostasy of the Templars?

The work of this scholar is entitled, _Le Mystère du Baphomet révélé; or, the Brothers of the Military Order of the Temple convicted, by their own Memorials, of sharing the Apostasy, Idolatry, and Impiety of the Gnostics, and even of the Ophianites_.

The following contains the exposition, the analysis, and the recapitulation of M. Hammer.

“We read, in the procedure undertaken against the order of the Temple, that the knights worshipped an idol of _Bafomet form—in figuram Bafometi_.[181] The decomposition of this word furnishes _bafo_ and _meti_. _Bafo_, in Greek, signifies _dyeing_, or _dipping_, and, by extension, _baptism_; _meti_, signifies _spirit_. The _Bafomet_ of the Templars was then _the baptism of the spirit—the Gnostic baptism_, which was not performed by the waters of redemption, but which was a spiritual lustration by fire. _Bafomet_ signifies, then, _the illumination of the spirit_.

“As the Gnostics had furnished the Templars with Bafometic ideas and images, the word _meti_ (_metis_) became venerated among the Templars: “I shall, therefore,” adds M. Hammer, “furnish proofs of this decisive circumstance.

“The Gnostics were accused of infamous vices. The _metis_ was represented under symbolical forms, principally under that of serpents, and of a truncated cross in the shape of _Tau—T_.

“The Gnostics,” continues M. Hammer, “did not always employ the word _meti_ in their monuments; they likewise made use of the word _gnosis_, which is synonymous, and is found among the Templars.”

Developing his system of accusation, M. Hammer constantly maintains that it is proved by the proceedings instituted against the Templars, that they adored Bafometic figures; he produces medals which bear these pretended Bafometic figures, and particularly some medals upon which may be read, _meti_, with a truncated cross,[182] and others which represent a temple, with the legend, _Sanctissima Quinosis_, that is to say, _Gnosis_. He indicates likewise Gnostic vases and chalices; and attributing them to the Templars, advances, that the romance of the _Saint Graal_, or holy cup, is a symbolic romance, which at the same time conceals and proves the apostasy of the knights; and believes that he recognises in churches which formerly belonged to the Templars, or which he pretends to have belonged to them, Bafometic figures, and Gnostic and ophitic symbols.

M. Hammer expends much erudition in describing the various and numerous systems which preceded and produced the sect of the Gnostics; at length he comes to the Bafometic figures; he produces twenty-four of them, which appear to him to bear the characters of the _Bafomet_; they are covered with astrological signs; many are encircled by a serpent, and hold this cross by a handle, which was called _key of the Nile_ by the Egyptians, and which has been considered the symbol of fecundity; they bear inscriptions, some in Latin, some in Greek, which denote nothing but proper names; and others in Arabic would be unintelligible, if we had not the means of comparing them with those upon the vases. The principal vase bears an Arabic inscription, which refers to the worship of a divinity named _Mété_; it has the title of _Teala_—all-powerful, and of _Nasch_—producer. M. Hammer pretends that the _Mété_ was the same as the _Sophia_ and _Achamet_ of the various sects of Gnostics.

But no relation presents itself, either near or remote, with the Templars.

It was M. Nicolaï who, in a German work, entitled, _An Essay upon the Secret of the Templars_, first employed this word _Bafomet_, and who attached to it the idea of the image of the supreme God, in the state of quietude attributed to him by the Manichean Gnostics; it was this learned man who first supposed that the Templars had a secret doctrine and initiations of several grades; and he pretends that the Saracens had communicated this doctrine to them.

In order to destroy all these systems, it is sufficient to prove that it is impossible to prove that the word _Bafometi_, which is reported in the proceedings against the Templars, signified anything but _Mahomet_.

M. le Baron Sylvestre de Sacy had already condemned this explanation of M. Hammer; and if the latter persisted in not recognising in _Bafomet_ the name of _Mahomet_, it would be easy to prove to him that authors of the middle ages often wrote Bafomet for Mahomet;—authorities are not wanting.

If the word even of the Bafometic or Gnostic sect does not exist, if it never has existed, the entire system is without a basis.

But even if it could be proved that a Bafometic sect had existed, if we were in possession of certain details upon its opinions and mysteries, how could M. Hammer prove that the Templars belonged to this sect?

M. Hammer has collected and caused to be engraved as many as a hundred medals and other monuments which he attributes to the Templars, because he fancies he finds upon them the _Mete_ and the _Tau_ of the Gnostics.

The medals he produces are not even proofs of the existence of a sect of Gnostics; and even if this existence could be demonstrated, these medals and these monuments being entirely foreign to the Templars, why should they be applied to them?[183]

To give an idea of the manner in which M. Hammer tries to prove, by the medals, that the Templars were Gnostics, I will cite only these upon which this savant fancies he reads the word _Quinosis_ or _Gnosis_.

In the coin 80, we see, according to M. Hammer, the temple of Jerusalem with four towers; the inscription is: + S. S. SIMOONJU[prostrate d]A; but reading it the reverse way, and beginning, not by the final A, but by the prostrate d, which M. Hammer has taken for a Q, whilst other savants, who have quoted this medal, have thought it a D, he reads SSTA QUINOMIS, although there is no T in the inscription; and considering the M as a sigma reversed, M. Hammer has found QUINOSIS; then QUI into G, and only making a single O of the two, he obtains GNOSIS; which, according to his account, reveals and proves the secret of the Gnostic Templars.

M. Hammer not only reads it backwards, but he begins by the penultimate letter, and leaves the A, after which is a + which separates the beginning of the inscription from its end. He adds a T, and supposes a Greek letter mixed with the Latin inscription; and yet, after all these changes, he cannot produce the word GNOSIS.

And what prevented him from seeing in this inscription what it really is, SS. SIMON JUDA?

In the medal 99 we read in the same manner, S. SIMON VEL JUDA; in the 93rd, S. SIMON JUDA, &c. Nothing was more common in the middle ages than coins which, on one side bear the name of a saint, and on the other side the name of a city or prince.

Two of the coins upon which, instead of ST. SIMON and ST. JUDE, M. Hammer records SAINT GNOSTIC, bear also the name of _Otto_, or _Otto_ MARCHIO. This circumstance is embarrassing for M. Hammer; he explains it by saying that this Marquis Otho was a Gnostic, a protector of the Templars, and initiated into their secret doctrines.

Seelander only reads St. Simon and St. Jude upon these coins; he believes that this Otho might be Otho II., marquis of Brandenburg, who lived about the year 1200. If the opinion of Seelander will not induce M. Hammer to adopt this simple, natural, and evident explanation, he may find in Otto Sperlingius the explanation of a similar coin, with the inscription of St. Simon and St. Jude. The heads of the two saints are close together, under the same crown. A. Mellen thought that this coin was struck at Goslar, and Sperlengius adopts his opinion.

But even if it were allowed that these coins belonged to a sect of Gnostics, I should continue to assert that M. Hammer does not at all prove that the Templars made use of them. The reasoning of this savant is reduced almost to this:—“These monuments are Gnostic, therefore they relate to the Templars;” and to this:—“These monuments relate to the Templars, therefore they are Gnostic.”

But let me be permitted to say once more, if the Templars had had amongst them such Gnostic signs, how was it that these signs were not made known and denounced when the question was to destroy the order? How is it that they are never found anywhere but in Germany?

I should obtain the same result if I were to examine in this manner in detail all that relates to the cups and chalices in which M. Hammer believes he sees Gnostic emblems; not only is there nothing upon them concerning the Templars, but M. Hammer has only collected them in places and upon monuments quite foreign to the order of the Templars.

As to the Gnostic sculptures which M. Hammer persists in seeing in some churches, is it not well known that we find in the churches of the middle ages sculptures and monuments which it is very difficult to explain, either on account of the moral and religious ideas which the artists of the time expressed under very unsuitable images; or on account of the pious allegories, the tradition of which is not come down to us?

The relievos of the capitals of the church of St. Germaine des Prés have embarrassed antiquaries, and if M. Hammer had found such in a church of the Templars, he would not have failed to magnify by them his act of accusation.

He cites seven churches in Germany, in which he pretends to recognise Gnostic emblems: but he offers no proof that these churches belonged to the Templars; and, even if the Order had built them, is it to be conceived, that if there existed a secret doctrine among them, the leaders would have exposed the symbols of it in public in their churches? And how is it that they selected seven German churches to receive these irreligious signs, whilst they did nothing of the same kind in the three thousand churches they possessed in Christendom?

M. Hammer is not more fortunate when he seeks in romances, which speak of the SAINT GRAAL, the emblematic history, or the symbol of the order of the Temple.

These romances present nothing contrary to religion; the knights, who are the personages, promise fidelity to God and the ladies; they arm and fight for religion and beauty. Can we then be astounded that at the period when these romances were composed, the search for the St. Graal, or holy cup, was considered an exploit worthy of chivalry?

M. Hammer fancies he finds something very favourable to him in the following passage:—“As the St. Graal came to Tramelet on the day of Pentecost,”—he remarks that the festival of St. Graal was not celebrated on Christmas-day, but at Pentecost; “if by this cup,” says he, “had been meant, as some people suppose, the Lord’s cup, the festival would have been celebrated either on Christmas-day or Holy Thursday, and not on the day of Pentecost, which the Gnostics regarded as very holy, as the day of the Holy Ghost, which was for the Gnostics Sophia, and for the Templars METE.”

The reply to this is very easy:—1st. King Artus held his plenary court on the great festivals of the year; it is not, then, surprising that the St. Graal should arrive at Pentecost. 2nd. The author of the romance could not choose the day of Christmas-day, which festival was not appointed in the time of King Artus. 3rd. It is even probable that the romance in question was composed before the institution of that festival by Urban IV., in 1264.

M. Hammer has been sensible that it was strange to form, after a lapse of five centuries, an accusation against the Templars quite different from that which served as a pretext for the contemporary oppressors. Therefore he advances that the pope, by the sentence which was pronounced against the Templars, was willing to conceal the knowledge of their true crimes; but he maintains, that when the archives of Rome shall come to light, as everything does sooner or later, we shall there find the proof of the crimes he now denounces.

How is it possible to be believed, that if the knights had been guilty of the crimes M. Hammer attributes to them, the pope and kings would have preferred the absurd system of accusation which they employed, to a system such as that which M. Hammer puts forth?

But, besides, it is very certain that ALL the pieces which the archives of Rome contained are now known: they are ALL marked with their numbers in the notice of the unpublished pieces which have assisted in the composition of _Les Monuments Historiques relatifs à la Condemnation des Chavaliers du Temple, etc._ M. Hammer has nothing, therefore, to hope from the archives of the Vatican.

This distinguished savant will some day acknowledge that he ought not to have yielded to the desire of putting forth a new system of denunciation against the order and the knights of the Temple. Their terrible and celebrated catastrophe imposes the obligation of being very circumspect and very severe in the choice of the means by which we may allow ourselves to endeavour to deprive them of the just pity which posterity has not refused to their fate.

INDEX.

A.

Abaga, khan of the Tartars, sends ambassadors to Rome, iii. 26.

Abassides persecute the Christians, i. 8. Decline of their empire,
i. 13.

Aboubeker, his interview with Richard I. of England, i. 498.

Abou-bekr, founder of one of the Mohammedan sects, iii. 413.

Accien, sovereign of Antioch, i. 129.

Achard de Montmerle, i. 83.

Adel, the son of Saladin, ii. 3 n.

Adhémar de Monteil, bishop of Puy, engages in the first crusade,
i. 5, i. 87.
His enthusiastic bravery, i. 170, i. 173.

Adonis, the river, i. 306.

Adrianople, besieged by the Latins, ii. 166.
Battle of, ii. 167.
Siege raised, ii. 168.

Æneas Sylvius, bishop of Sienna, preaches a crusade against the Turks,
iii. 163 et seq.
Elected pope, under the title of Pius II., iii. 170.
See _Pius II._

Afdhal, son of Saladin, and commander of the Mussulman forces of
Egypt, i. 238.
His extensive empire, ii. 3.
Civil contests of, ii. 4 et seq.
Oath taken by the emirs of, ii. 3 n.
Rebellion against, ii. 4.

Africa invaded by the Christian forces, iii. 117 et seq.

Agriculture, products of, introduced into Europe during the middle
ages, iii. 329, iii. 330.

Aibek, assassinated, iii. 3.
His son raised to the throne of Egypt, iii. 4;
and dethroned, iii. 5.

Alaziz, sultan of Egypt, ii. 2, ii. 3 n.
Takes arms against his brother, ii. 4 et seq.

Albéric, son of Hugh de Grandménil, i. 83.

Alberon, archdeacon of Metz, slain, i. 131.

Albert, count of Blandras, i. 249.

Albigeois, religious principles of the, ii. 196, ii. 197.
Papal crusades and cruel wars against the, ii. 199, ii. 267,
ii. 310.

Alemar of Selingar engages in the holy war, ii. 465.

Aleppo, states of, i. 127.

Alexander of Macedon, amount of his forces, and his victories, i. 255,
i. 257.

Alexandretta taken possession of by the Crusaders, i. 119.

Alexandria captured and burnt by the Crusaders, iii. 116.

Alexius Comnenus I., emperor of Constantinople, seeks the assistance
of the Latins against the Turks, i. 44 and n., i. 45.
Alarmed at the vast number of Crusaders from the West, i. 88.(*)
(*) The name in this and a few of the following pages
is printed “Alexis”.
His character, i. 89.
His treatment of the Crusaders, i. 90.
His alliance with Godfrey de Bouillon, i. 92.
His reception of the French chiefs, i. 93, i. 94.
His suspicious treatment of the Crusaders, i. 104.
He perfidiously takes possession of Nice, in opposition to the
Latins, _ib._
His insidious policy, i. 105, i. 168, i. 282.
He sends an embassy to the Crusaders at Archas, i. 194.
Opposes the second body of them, i. 250.
The limits of his empire extended by the victories of the Crusaders,
and Constantinople rendered safe from the attacks of the
Saracens, i. 260.

—— Angelus, emperor of Constantinople, dethrones his brother Isaac,
ii. 62.
His character, ii. 75, ii. 158.
Expelled by the Crusaders, ii. 93.
His death, ii. 158.

——, nephew of Alexius Angelus, and son of Isaac, the dethroned
emperor, ii. 62, ii. 69.
Aided by the Crusaders, ii. 75.
His military operations and conquests, ii. 79, ii. 80.
Enters Constantinople in triumph with the besieging Crusaders,
ii. 95.
Crowned as joint emperor with his father, ii. 97.
His peculiar position, ii. 101, ii. 113.
His proposals to the Crusaders, ii. 102.
His contentions with the Bulgarians, ii. 105.
His character, ii. 107, ii. 118.
His dethronement and violent death, ii. 118.

Ali, founder of one of the Mohammedan sects, iii. 413, iii. 414.

Alides, party of the, i. 8.

Alise, of Antioch, i. 311.

Al-Mahadia, city of, captured and burnt, i. 40 and n.

Almamon, caliph of Bagdad, i. 9.

Almoadam elected to the throne of Egypt, ii. 417.
Enters into a treaty for the ransom of Louis IX., ii. 438.
Revolt of the Mamelukes against, ii. 439, ii. 440.
His assassination, ii. 441;
with whom terminated the Ayoubite dynasty, ii. 445.

Alp-Arsland, reign of, i. 32.

Alphonse, count, of Poictiers, engages in the holy war, ii. 393,
ii. 395.
Arrives at Damietta, ii. 396.

Alphonso, prince of Burgundy, i. 375.

—— II., of the house of Arragon, iii. 193, iii. 194.

Altamont castle, the seat of the “Old Man of the Mountain”, iii. 416,
iii. 417.

Amadeus, duke of Turin, i. 338.

Amalfi, city of, i. 85, i. 86.

Amaury, count of Jaffa, elected king of Jerusalem, i. 386.
His expedition to Egypt, i. 388.
He allies himself with the Egyptians to resist the Syrians, i. 390.
The Egyptians agree to pay him an annual tribute, i. 391.
Marries the daughter of the emperor Manuel, i. 392;
and makes war on Egypt, i. 394 et seq.
His projects against Egypt, i. 399.
Death of, _ib._

—— II., king of Jerusalem, death of, ii. 190.

Amurath, the Turkish sultan, iii. 123.
He enters into a treaty of peace with the Crusaders, iii. 138;
and afterwards defeats them with great slaughter, iii. 142.

Anaclet, the anti-pope, i. 76.

Ancona, the Crusaders under Pius II. collected at, iii. 178.

Ancyra, city of, taken by assault, i. 251.
Battle of, between Tamerlane and Bajazet, iii. 133.

André de Brienne, slain, i. 461.

Andrew, Brother, of Antioch, his strange address to Philip of France,
iii. 110.

—— II., king of Hungary, engages in the sixth crusade, ii. 217,
ii. 224.
He arrives in Palestine, ii. 225.
Returns to Europe, ii. 230.

Andronicus, emperor of Constantinople, iii. 122.

——, the “Nero of the Greeks,” dethroned, i. 446.

Angelli, Peter, author of a poem on the first crusade, i. 171 n.

Angelram, death of, i. 190.

Anjou, duke of, his heroism, ii. 413.

Anselm, archbishop of Milan, i. 249.

Anselme de Ribemont, death and character of, i. 190.

Antioch captured by Nicephorus, i. 13.
Renaud de Chatillon raised by marriage to the throne of, i. 103.
The Crusaders arrive at the city of, i. 127.
Its ancient celebrity, i. 128. Described, _ib._
Protracted siege of, i. 129 et seq.
Betrayed by Phirous, i. 147, et seq.;
and captured, i. 155-157.
Sufferings of the Crusaders at, i. 159, i. 160.
They march out of, and defeat the Saracens, i. 170-174.
Miraculous prodigies seen at, i. 173, i. 183.
Fatal epidemic at, i. 178, i. 179.
The Crusaders take their departure from, i. 187, i. 188.
Distresses of, i. 285.
Flourishing state of, i. 306.
Disputes respecting the sovereignty, i. 311.
Raymond of Poictiers appointed governor, i. 312.
Louis VII. arrives at, with a portion of the Crusaders, i. 360.
His splendid retinue, _ib._
Bohemond III. governor of, ii. 8.
At war with Armenia, ii. 9.
Territory of, ravaged by the Turcomans, ii. 372.
Captured and destroyed by the sultan of Cairo, and all the
inhabitants slaughtered or led into captivity, iii. 17, iii. 18.

Antiochetta, capital of Pisidia, the Crusaders arrive at, i. 114.

Antoninus, St., of Plaisance, voyage of, i. 7 n.

Apostoliques, their religious principles, ii. 197.

Arabians, their conquests, i. 10.
Their knowledge of medicine, iii. 336.

Archambaud de Bourbon, i. 359.

Archas, city of, described, i. 187, i. 188 and n.
Siege of, i. 189.

Architecture, progress of, during the crusades, iii. 330-332.

Arculphus, St., pilgrimage of, i. 7.

Argun, the Tartar chief, iii. 94, iii. 95.

Aristocracy, on the origin of, iii. 280 et seq.

Aristotle, philosophy of, introduced into Europe, iii. 338.

Armenians, slaughter of the, ii. 169.

Arms of the Crusaders, i. 99.

Arnold, a priest, elected pastor of the Church of Jerusalem, i. 236.

—— a Flemish preacher, his account of the siege of Lisbon noticed,
i. 375 n.

—— de Rohés, chaplain to the duke of Normandy, i. 191.
His incredulity in prodigies, i. 192.
His address to the Crusaders, i. 214.

—— of Bressia, i. 332.

Arpin, count de Berri, dies in slavery, i. 254 and n.

Arsouf, city of, i. 244.
Besieged and captured by the Mamelukes, iii. 11, iii. 12.

Arsur, rebellion and siege of, i. 267, i. 268.
Captured by Baldwin, i. 277.
Battle of, fought between Richard I. and Saladin, i. 487.

Art, works of, destroyed at Constantinople by the Latins,
iii. 438-440 (App.).

Artesia captured by the Crusaders, i. 127.

Artois, count de, ii. 396.
His rash bravery, ii. 403.
Is slain, ii. 408.
His letter on the taking of Damietta, iii. 456 (App.).

Arts, emulation in Europe for their cultivation, iii. 229.
Progress of during the period of the crusades, iii. 251,
iii. 328 et seq.

Ascalon, great battle on the plain of, between the Egyptians and the
Crusaders, i. 240-242.
Siege of, i. 244.
The Saracens defeated on the plains of, i. 297, i. 298, i. 402.
Destroyed by fire, i. 490.
Rebuilt by the Crusaders, _ib._
Surrendered to Saladin, i. 426.
Siege and capture of by Baldwin III., i. 384.

Aschmoum, canal of, military operations on the banks of,
ii. 399 et seq.

Asia subdued by the Turks, i. 32.

“Assassins” of Syria, origin and history of the, iii. 413,
iii. 420 et seq.
See _Ishmaëlites_.

“Assizes of Jerusalem,” collected by John d’Ibelin, i. 271 n.
Laws and spirit of the, i. 272, i. 273, i. 488.

Atabecks, dynasty of the, i. 306.
Decline of the empire of the, i. 399.

Atheling, Edgar, commander of the English, i. 205.

Attalia, the Crusaders arrive at, i. 357;
and suffer great hardships, i. 358.

Aubusson, grand master of the knights of St. John, iii. 188.

Augsburg, diet at, iii. 200.

Augustines, their quarrels with the Dominicans, iii. 210.

Avignon, assembly of Christian sovereigns at, to promote a fresh
crusade, iii. 113, iii. 114.

Ayoub, the father of Saladin, i. 369.

Ayoubites, princely race of the, ii. 3, and n.
Their empire, _ib._
Decline of their empire, ii. 237.
Discord among the family, ii. 376.
Extinction of the dynasty, ii. 445.

Aymeristes, religious principles of the, ii. 197.

B.

Bacon, Chancellor, his dialogue “de Bello Sacro,” iii. 246.

Bagdad, the seat of the arts and sciences, i. 9.
Degeneracy of the caliphs of, i. 12, i. 13.
The caliphs of, the chiefs of Islamism, i. 383.
Captured by the Mogul Tartars, iii. 4.

Baghisian, the sovereign of Antioch, i. 129.

Bajazet I., the Turkish sultan, iii. 125.
Defeats the Christian forces, iii. 127, iii. 128.
His speech to the duke de Nevers, iii. 129.
Raises the siege of Constantinople, and being defeated at Ancyra by
Tamerlane, is taken prisoner, iii. 133.

—— II. succeeds Mahomet II., iii. 191.
Declares war against Venice, iii. 197.
Dethroned, and succeeded by Selim, iii. 201.

Balac, the emir, slain, i. 302.

Baldoukh, the emir, defeated, i. 123.

Baldwin, brother of Godfrey de Bouillon, engages in the first crusade,
i. 78.
His dissensions with the leaders, i. 116, i. 117.
Massacres the Turks, i. 118.
Joined by corsairs, _ib._
His hostile encounter with Tancred, i. 119.
His successes, i. 121, i. 122.
Founds the principality of Edessa, i. 124.
Sends magnificent presents to the leaders of the Crusaders, i. 146.
Visits Jerusalem, i. 269.
Elected king of Jerusalem on the death of Godfrey, i. 275.
Defeats the Saracens, i. 275, i. 276.
His quarrel with Tancred, i. 276, i. 277.
Carries on vigorous hostilities against the infidels of Palestine,
Egypt, &c., i. 277 et seq.
Anecdote of his humanity, i. 279.
His singular preservation, i. 280.
Lamentations for his supposed death, _ib._
His quarrels with the patriarch of Jerusalem, i. 285, i. 286.
Captures Ptolemaïs, i. 286.
His hostilities against Egypt, i. 293.
His death and character, i. 294.
His funeral, i. 295.

—— de Bourg, cousin of Godfrey de Bouillon, engages in the first
crusade, i. 78.
Defeated and taken prisoner, i. 283.
His release, and great poverty, i. 285.
Elected king of Jerusalem, i. 296.
Made prisoner by the Turks, _ib._
Released, i. 302.
His death and character, i. 310, i. 311.

—— III., king of Jerusalem, i. 316.
Form of his coronation, i. 317 and n.
Urges on the war against the Saracens, i. 363.
His military character, i. 384.
Death of, by poison, _ib._

—— IV., king of Jerusalem, i. 401.
His wars with Saladin, i. 402 et seq.
Death of, i. 412.

—— V., crowned king of Jerusalem, i. 407.
Death of, i. 412.

——, count of Flanders, engages in the fifth crusade, ii. 47.
Elected emperor of Constantinople, ii. 148.
Quarrels with Boniface, marquis of Montferrat, ii. 150-161.
His letter to the pope, ii. 152.
Defeated, and taken prisoner by the Bulgarians, ii. 168.
Romantic incidents of his life, ii. 171 and n.
His mysterious death, ii. 172.

——, son-in-law of John of Brienne, successor to the throne of
Constantinople, ii. 289.
His expulsion and great poverty, _ib._

—— II., emperor of Constantinople, his distressing situation,
iii. 9.
Driven from his throne by Michael Palæologus, iii. 10.

——, count de Hainault, engages in the first crusade, i. 78.
Perishes in Asia Minor, i. 177.

——, Archbishop, preaches the crusade in England, i. 441 and n.
His journey into Wales, iii. 408 (App.).

Baleau d’Ibelin defends Jerusalem against Saladin, i. 427.

Bar, count de, refuses the command of the Crusaders, ii. 54.

Barbarossa, Frederick, engages in the holy war, i. 444 et seq.
His victorious career, i. 448.
His death, i. 449.

Barbary invaded by the Christian forces, iii. 117 et seq.
The states of, taken under the protection of the Ottoman Porte,
iii. 220.

Barland, Adrian, his notices of Peter the Hermit, i. 41 n.

Barons of England, contests of the, with their sovereigns, iii. 257.

Barthélemi, Peter, a priest, pretended revelation of, i. 165.
Fanaticism of, i. 191, i. 192.
Submits to the ordeal of fire, and loses his life, i. 193.

——, Sieur, anecdote of, iii. 68.
Becomes a Mohammedan renegade, iii. 69, iii. 84.

Bathenians, a title given to the Ishmaëlites, iii. 419.