The Ass and his Driver, cast by order of Augustus, after the battle of Actium, in commemoration of his having discovered the position of Antony through the means of a peasant and his beast, the one bearing the name ofFortunate, and the other that ofConqueror.
The Wolf suckling the twins of Rome; the Gladiator in combat with a Lion; the Hippopotamus; the Sphynxes: and the famous Eagle fighting with a Serpent; all underwent the same fate, as well as the beautiful statue of Helen, which Nicetas speaks of as the perfection of statuary.
Added to these were the exquisite figure on the race-course, and a group, wherein a monster, somewhat resembling a bull, was represented engaged in deadly conflict with a serpent. Each appeared expiring under the efforts of the other; the snake crushed between the teeth of the monster, and the bull tainted to the heart by the venom of the reptile: no bad emblem of the struggle between the bold and furious valour of the Latins and the poisonous treachery of the Greeks themselves.
NOTE XII.—CHAP. XIV.
That St. Louis was threatened with the torture is an undoubted fact though what that sort of torture was which Joinville callsles Berniclesis not so clear. Ducange fancies that it was theCippusof the ancients: and whether it was or not, the resolution of the monarch in resisting showed not a little fortitude. I subjoin Ducange’s observations.
“Le Sire de Joinville dit que le Sultan de Babylone, ou son Conseil fit faire au Roy des propositions peu raisonables, croyant qu’il y consentiroit pour obtenir sa deliurance, et celle de ceux de sa suite, qui auoient este faits prisonniers auec luy en la bataille de Massoure. Et sur ce quele Roy refusa absolument d’y donner les mains, il le voulut intimider; et le menaça de luy faire souffrir de grands tourmens. Mathieu Paris: Cùm frequenter à Saracenis cumterribilibus comminationibus sollicitaretur Rex vt Damiatam redderet, et noluit vlla ratione, postularunt summam sibi pecuniæ persolui sine diminutione, vel diuturno cruciatu vsque ad mortem torqueretur. Ce tourment est appelle par le Sire de Jouinville les Bernicles, lequel il decrit en ces termes. Et voyans les Sarazins que le Roy ne vouloit obtemperer à leur demandes, ils le menacerent de le mettre en Bernicles: qui est le plus grief tourment qu’ils puissent faire à nully: Et sont deux grans tisons de bois, qui sont entretenans au chef. Et quant ils veulent y mettre aucun, ils le couschent sur le couste entre ces dieux tisons, et luy font passer les jambes à trauers de grosses cheuilles: puis couschent la piece de bois, qui est là-dessus, et font asseoir vn homme dessus les tisons. Dont il auient qu’il ne demeure à celuy qui est là cousche point demy pied d’ossemens, qu’il ne soit tout desrompu et escache. Et pour pis luy faire, au bout des trois jours luy remettent les jambes, qui sont grosses et enflees, dedens celles bernicles, et la rebrisent derechief, qui est vne chose moult cruelle à qui sauroit entendre: et la lient à gros nerfs de bœuf par la teste, de peur qu’il ne se remuë là dedans.
THE END.
Footnotes:
[1]La Père Menestrier, Ordres de Chevalerie; Jouvencel; Favin Théâtre.
[2]Fabliau de l’ordene de Chevalerie dans les fabliaux de Le Grand d’Aussi.
[3]Tacit. de Mor. Germ.
[4]Marculfus.
[5]Menestrier de la Chevalerie et ses preuves, page 230.
[6]Tacitus de Morib. German.
[7]Eginhard Ann.
[8]Seenote I.
[9]Charles Nodier on St. Palaye.
[10]Ordene de Chevalerie Fabliaux.
[11]Charles Nodier.
[12]Felibien, Hist. St. Denis.
[13]Coutumes de Beauvoisis.
[14]St. Palaye.
[15]Vie de Bayard.
[16]Favin Théâtre.
[17]Vie de Boucicaut, Coll. Pelitot et Momerque.
[18]Vie de Bayard.
[19]Froissart.
[20]St. Palaye, liv. i.
[21]Guillaume Guiart.; Guill, Amoric.; Rigord; Philipeid.
[22]Brantome.
[23]Seenote II.
[24]Charles Nodier’s Annotations on St. Palaye.
[25]Ducange, Dissert. xxii. Menestrier, chap. 2; St. Palaye.
[26]Roman de Garin, Fabliaux, vol. ii.
[27]Menestrier, chap. 2. and 9.
[28]Menestrier, chap. 9.
[29]St. Palaye.
[30]Hartknoch, lib. ii. c. 1.
[31]Existing Orders of Knighthood.
[32]Cappefigue.
[33]Menestrier, ix.; St. Palaye.
[34]Adré Favin Théât.
[35]Nithard, lib. iii.
[36]Britannarumis the word.
[37]Ducange apud Chron. Tur. an. 1066.
[38]Munster. Geogr. lib. iii.
[39]Ducange, in his sixth dissertation, has satisfactorily overturned the assertion made by Modius, that tournaments were known in Germany at a much earlier period than here stated.
[40]Ducange, Dissert. vii.
[41]Menestrier Origine.
[42]Favin Théâtre.
[43]St. Palaye.
[44]St. Palaye.
[45]Vie de Bayard.
[46]Vie de Bayard.
[47]Olivier de la Marche.
[48]Ducange, Dissert. vi.
[49]St. Palaye.
[50]Ducange, Dissert. vii.
[51]Mat. Paris, Ann. 1241.
[52]Colombiere.
[53]Menestrier, vi.
[54]Mat. Westmonas., page 409.
[55]Should any one be tempted to investigate further, he will find the subject discussed at length in the seventh dissertation of Ducange. See also theChronique de Molinet.
[56]St. Palaye; Ribeiro, lib. x.
[57]Menestrier.
[58]Ordonances des Rois de France, ann. 1294.
[59]Pasquier Recherches.
[60]Vie de Bayard sur Jean d’Arces.
[61]Seenote III.
[62]Colombiere.
[63]La Colombiere.
[64]Froissart Olivier de la Marche.
[65]See the “Vœu du Heron and the Vœu du Paon.” cited in St. Palaye.
[66]Seenote IV.
[67]Ducange, Dissert, xxi.
[68]Monstrelet.
[69]Juvenal des Ursius.
[70]Hardouin de la Jaille.
[71]See deed between Du Guesclin and Clisson. Ducange, Dissert, xxi.
[72]Ducange, Gloss. Lat. Mutare Armas.
[73]See the Chevalier de la Tour, as cited by St. Palaye.
[74]Vertot.
[75]Sharon Turner.
[76]William of Jumieges, lib. iv.
[77]Eginhard. Annal.
[78]Mabillon.
[79]William of Tyre, lib. i.
[80]Voltaire, Essai sur les Mœurs.
[81]Guibert de Nogent.
[82]Will. Tyr. lib. i.
[83]Mills mentions one from Manuel VII. to Pope Gregory VII., and Guibert of Nogent speaks of another which, though he cautiously avoids naming the emperor who wrote it, lest he should mislead from want of correct information, could only have been sent, under some of the circumstances he mentions, by Isaac Comnenus. Mills supposes it to have been the same with a letter written by Alexius, though it differs in many parts from the usual version of that epistle. Probably, however, this opinion is correct, as a letter is stated to have been addressed to Robert of Flanders, who was in his extreme youth in the time of Isaac Comnenus.
[84]Murator. Script. Ital.
[85]Albert of Aix; William of Tyre.
[86]Ibid.
[87]Robert, lib. i.
[88]Guib. Nogent, lib. ii.
[89]Hist. Hieros. abrev. Jacob. Vit. lib. i.
[90]Will. Tyr. lib. i.; Albert. Chron. Hieros.
[91]Will. Tyr.; Hist. Hieros.; Jacob. Vit. lib. i.
[92]Will. Tyr. lib. i.
[93]Albert. Aquensis; Hist. Hieros.; Jacobi Vitr.; Will. Tyr.
[94]Seenote V.
[95]William of Tyre says that he was wandering from place to place under the protection of Guiscard. This opinion I have adopted, although Albert of Aix declares that Peter joined him at Rome.
[96]Will. of Malmsbury.
[97]Mills.
[98]Will. Tyr. lib. i.
[99]Guibertus; Gesta Dei.
[100]A. D. 1095.
[101]Mills, chap. ii.
[102]Will. Tyr. lib. i.
[103]Robertus Monachus, lib. i.
[104]I have followed as nearly as possible the account of Robertus Monachus, who was present. Having found in no book of any authenticity the speech attributed by more modern writers to Peter the Hermit, I have rejected it entirely as supposititious. Neither Robert, nor Albertus Aquensis, nor William of Tyre, nor Guibert of Nogent, nor James of Vitry, the most authentic historians of the crusade, some of whom were present at the council of Clermont, and most of whom lived at the time, even mention the appearance of Peter at that assembly. That he might be there, I do not attempt to deny, but that he addressed the people I believe utterly unfounded.
[105]Seenote VI.
[106]Robertus Monachus.
[107]Fulcher of Chartres; Guibert of Nogent; William of Tyre.
[108]Seenote VII.
[109]Guibert of Nogent.
[110]Fulcher of Chartres; William of Tyre.
[111]Guibert; Gesta Dei.
[112]Albert. Aquensis; Will. Tyr.; Guibert.
[113]Albert of Aix.
[114]See Ducange in Sig. Cruc.
[115]Albert of Aix; James of Vitry; Robert the Monk; Guibert.
[116]Fulcher.
[117]Albert of Aix; William of Tyre. Mills follows this opinion; Guibert of Nogent and James of Vitry are opposed to it, and Fulcher gives a different account also.
[118]Fulcher; Will. Tyr.; Albert Aquen.
[119]Will. Tyr.
[120]Albert of Aix; William of Tyre.
[121]Albert of Aix.
[122]Guibert.
[123]Albert of Aix.
[124]Ibid.
[125]Guibert.
[126]Baldric.
[127]Albert of Aix.
[128]Guibert of Nogent, lib. ii.; Albert of Aix, lib. i.; Orderic Vital, lib. ix. Mills says it was the French and Normans who thus advanced into the country, but the great majority of writers is against him.
[129]Albert of Aix; William of Tyre.
[130]Robert the Monk; William of Tyre; Guibert of Nogent; Albert of Aix.
[131]Robert the Monk; Guibert of Nogent.
[132]William of Tyre; Albert of Aix.
[133]Robert the Monk; Guibert of Nogent.
[134]Ibid.
[135]William of Tyre; Albert of Aix.
[136]Albert. Aquensis; William of Tyre.
[137]Albert of Aix.
[138]Robertus Monachus, lib. i.
[139]Guibert of Nogent.
[140]Guibert of Nogent.
[141]Seenote VIII.
[142]Will. Malmsbury.
[143]Will. of Tyre; Albert of Aix.
[144]Albert of Aix.
[145]Guibert of Nogent.
[146]Guibert; Will. Tyr.
[147]Albert of Aix.
[148]William of Tyre.
[149]Albert of Aix.
[150]Albert. Aquensis.
[151]Will Tyr.; Albert. Aquens.
[152]Guibert.
[153]Fulcher; Guibert; Will. Tyr.; Albert.
[154]I have taken perhaps more pains than was necessary to investigate this part of the crusaders’ proceedings, which I found nearly as much confused in the writings of Mills as in those of the contemporary authors. Some assert that the whole mass of the western crusaders proceeded in one body through Italy; but finding that Fulcher, who accompanied Robert of Normandy and Stephen of Blois, never mentions Hugh of Vermandois; that Guibert speaks of that prince’s departure first; that the Archbishop of Tyre marks the divisions distinctly, and that he certainly embarked at a different port in Italy from the rest, I have been led to conclude, that though probably looking up to Hugh as the brother of their sovereign, the three great leaders proceeded separately on their march. Robertus Monachus is evidently mistaken altogether, as he joins the Count of Toulouse with the army of Hugh, when we know from Raimond d’Agiles that that nobleman conducted his troops through Sclavonia.
[155]Albert of Aix; William of Tyre.
[156]Guibert.
[157]Ibid. lib. ii.
[158]Will. Tyr. lib. ii.
[159]Albert of Aix; William of Tyre.
[160]Albert of Aix.
[161]Guibert.
[162]Albert of Aix; Robertus Monachus; Will. Tyr.
[163]Will. Tyr.; Rob. Mon.; Guibert; Albert. Aquens.
[164]Albert of Aix.
[165]Mills, in speaking of this interview, does not distinguish between the coat-of-arms and the mantle or pallium. They were, however, very different, and never, that I know of, worn together. The coat-of-arms was usually extremely small; and the form may be gathered from the anecdote of an ancient baron, who, not readily finding his coat-of-arms, seized the cloth of a banner, made a slit in the centre with his sword, and passing his head through the aperture, thus went to battle. These customs however often changed, and we find many instances of the coat-of-arms being worn long. The mantle was the garb of peace, and was even more richly decorated than the coat-of-arms. Another peaceful habiliment was the common surcoat, which differed totally from the tunic worn over the armour, having large sleeves and cuffs, as we find from the notes upon Joinville. The size of this garment may be very nearly ascertained from the same account, which mentions 736 ermines having been used in one surcoat worn by the king of France. See Joinville by Ducange.
For the use of the pallium, or mantle, see St. Palaye—notes on the Fourth Part.
[166]I have not chosen to represent this interview in the colours with which Mills has painted it. The princess Anna, from whom he took his view of the subject, can in no degree be depended upon. Her object was to represent her father as a dignified monarch, receiving with cold pomp a train of barbarous warriors; but the truth was, that Alexius was in no slight measure terrified at Godfrey and his host, and sought by every means to cajole him into compliance with his wishes. Almost every other historian declares that the crusaders were received with the utmost condescension and courtesy. Robert of Paris, one of Godfrey’s noble followers, did indeed seat himself on the throne of Alexius, and replied to Baldwin’s remonstrance by a braggart boast, for which the emperor only reproved him by a contemptuous sneer. This, however, would, if any thing, prove that the pride and haughtiness was on the part of the crusaders rather than on that of the imperial court.
[167]Albert of Aix; William of Tyre.
[168]Albert of Aix.
[169]Vertot.
[170]Robert the Monk.
[171]Gerusalemme, cant. i.
[172]What the relationship exactly was I have not been able to discover. Mills does not satisfy me that the mother of Tancred was the sister of Robert Guiscard. The expressions of Ralph of Caen on the subject appear to be obscure.
[173]Albert of Aix.
[174]St. Palaye.
[175]Mills, chap. 3.
[176]Fulcher.
[177]Raoul de Caen.
[178]William of Tyre.
[179]Raoul de Caen; William of Tyre; Albert of Aix; Guibert.
[180]Orderic. Vital. lib. ix.
[181]Boemond had inherited all his father’s hatred to the Greek sovereigns, and had waged many a bloody and successful war against Alexius himself.
[182]Will. Tyr.; Albert. Aquens.
[183]Raoul de Caen; Guibert.
[184]Alexiad par Ducange.
[185]Guibert, lib. iii.
[186]Radulph. Cad. cap. 11.
[187]Radulph. Cadom. cap. 12.
[188]Albertus Aquensis says that Tancred took with him the whole army. William of Tyre follows the same opinion, as well as Guibert. Orderic Vital declares that when the troops were passing, Tancred dressed himself as a common soldier, and passed among the crowd; but Radulphus Cadomensis (or Raoul of Caen, as the French translate his name), who was his companion and friend in after-years, makes no mention of his having taken with him any part of the forces he commanded, merely stating, that in his eagerness to pass before he was discovered, he aided to row the boat himself.
[189]Raimond d’Agiles.
[190]Ibid.
[191]Raimond d’Agiles; Will. Tyr.; Guibert.
[192]Guibert; Albert of Aix.
[193]Will. Tyr.
[194]Guibert.
[195]Raimond d’Agiles.
[196]Guibert; Raimond; Will Tyr.
[197]Alexiad.
[198]Raimond d’Agiles; Albert of Aix.
[199]Raimond d’Agiles expressly states that the army of the Count of Toulouse, which he accompanied to the Holy Land, did not join the other crusaders till they were under the walls of Nice. Mills is therefore wrong in writing that the Provençals joined the other soldiers of the Cross before their arrival at Nice, and then let them march on again before them.
[200]Guibert, lib. ii.
[201]Orderic Vital.
[202]Guibert.
[203]William of Tyre; Albert of Aix.
[204]Fulcher.
[205]Albert of Aix; Fulcher.
[206]Will. Tyr.
[207]Raimond d’Agiles; Guibert.
[208]All authors, those who were present as well as those who wrote from the accounts of others, differ entirely among themselves concerning the dispositions of the siege. Fulcher, who accompanied the Duke of Normandy, says that that chief attacked the south; Raimond of Agiles, who was present also, says that the south was the post of the Count of Toulouse. I have, however, adopted the account of Raimond, who appears to me to have paid more attention to the operations of the war than Fulcher.
[209]Fulcher.
[210]Ibid.
[211]The word used isloricati; and Ducange, who seldom makes a positive assertion without the most perfect certainty, states, in the observations on Joinville, that we may always translate the wordloricatus, a knight, “et quand on voit dans les auteurs Latins le terme de loricati il se doit entendre des Chevaliers.”—Ducange, Observ. sur l’Hist. de St. Louis, page 50.
[212]Guibert.
[213]Albert of Aix, lib. ii.
[214]Albert.
[215]Ibid.
[216]Albert; Raimond d’Agiles; Guibert.
[217]Albert.
[218]Raimond.
[219]Albert.
[220]Guibert.
[221]Guibert; Albert of Aix.
[222]Raimond d’Agiles; Fulcher; Albert of Aix; Robert. Mon.
[223]Robert. Mon.
[224]Fulcher.
[225]Guibert; Raimond d’Agiles.
[226]Albert of Aix.
[227]Fulcher.
[228]Idun; Albert of Aix.
[229]Albert of Aix.
[230]The Philippide.
[231]Albert of Aix.
[232]Fulcher.
[233]Raimond d’Agiles; Albert of Aix; Guibert.
[234]Will. Tyr.
[235]Albert of Aix.
[236]Guibert; Albert.
[237]William of Tyre; Raimond.
[238]Raimond de Agiles.
[239]William of Tyre; Raimond de Agiles; Guibert de Nogent.
[240]Fulcher, cap. 4; William of Tyre.
[241]Ten at a time were admitted within the walls, but not more.
[242]June 29, A. D. 1097.
[243]Fulcher, cap. 5; Raimond d’Agiles; Orderic Vital; Raoul de Caen.
[244]Mills avers that the chiefs separated by mutual consent. I have found nothing to confirm this opinion. Radulphus says that there was a rumour to that effect, but shows that it could not be just, as the baggage of the troops of Boemond and his party had, by the error that separated them, been left with the other division. William of Tyre leaves the question undecided. Fulcher says, absolutely, that the separation originated in a mistake. Orderic Vital follows the same opinion. Raimond d’Agiles is not precise, but he says that it was done inconsiderately; and Guibert decidedly affirms that it was accidental, and through the obscurity of the morning in which they began their march.
[245]William of Tyre.
[246]Fulcher; Raimond d’Agiles; Albert.
[247]Fulcher makes it amount to nearly three hundred and sixty thousand combatants; and Raimond reduces the number to one hundred and fifty thousand.
[248]Fulcher.
[249]Ibid; Guibert.
[250]William of Tyre; Guibert; Fulcher, cap. 5.
[251]Guibert; Will. of Tyr.
[252]Fulcher; Radulph. Cad. cap. 21.
[253]William of Tyre; Guibert; Fulcher.
[254]Fulcher, cap. 5; William of Tyre.
[255]William of Tyre.
[256]Raoul of Caen.
[257]Albert; Raoul of Caen; William of Tyre.
[258]Albert.
[259]Raoul of Caen.
[260]Fulcher; Albert; Raoul of Caen.
[261]Albert of Aix informs us, that the ladies of Boemond’s camp, seeing the merciless fury with which the Turks were dealing death to all ages and sexes, clothed themselves in their most becoming garments, and strove to display their charms to the best advantage, for the purpose of obtaining the durance of the harem rather than the grave. Albert was not present, and did not even visit the Holy Land; and I find his account in this respect confirmed by no other historian. The good canon, indeed, was somewhat fond of little tales of scandal, so that I feel inclined to doubt his authority, where such matters are under discussion. He has an anecdote in a similar style appended to his history of the taking of Nice.
[262]Radulphus, cap. 22.
[263]William of Tyre.
[264]Orderic Vital; Guibert.
[265]Albert of Aix; Fulcher, cap. 5; William of Tyre.
[266]Radulph. Cadom. cap. 26.
[267]Fulcher; Albert of Aix.
[268]Albert; Radulphus Cadomachus, cap. 27, 28,et seq.; William of Tyre.
[269]Many of the Christians attributed their victory to the miraculous interposition of two canonized martyrs, who, in glittering armour, led on the army of Godfrey and the count of Toulouse, and scared the Turks more than all the lancers of the crusaders. Though the supposed interposition of such personages certainly robbed the leaders of no small share of glory, yet it gave vast confidence and enthusiasm to the inferior classes.
[270]Albert of Aix; Fulcher; Guibert.
[271]William of Tyre.
[272]Guibert; William of Tyre; Albert of Aix.
[273]Albert of Aix.
[274]Guibert, lib. iii.
[275]Albert of Aix, lib. iii.; William of Tyre.
[276]Fulcher; Guibert.
[277]Albert.
[278]Ibid.
[279]Radulph. Cadom. cap. 33; Guibert. lib. iii.; Will. Tyr.
[280]All the authors of the day that I have been able to meet with declare this expedition of Baldwin and Tancred to have been voluntary. Mills only, as far as I can discover, attributes their conduct to an order received from others. I mark the circumstance more particularly, because, under my view of the case, the fact of Tancred and his companions having separated themselves from the rest of the host, after such immense fatigues, abandoning repose and comfort, and seeking new dangers and fresh privations, is one of the most extraordinary instances on record of the effect of the chivalrous spirit of the age. Under this point of view, all the historians of that time saw the enterprise which they have recorded; but Mills, writing in the least chivalrous of all epochs, has reduced the whole to a corporal-like obedience of orders.
[281]Albert of Aix, lib. iii.; Radulph. cap. 37.
[282]Albert of Aix, lib. iii.; Guibert; Will. Tyr.
[283]Radulphus, cap. 38.
[284]Albert of Aix; Guibert, lib. iii.
[285]Radulphus; Albert of Aix; Guibert of Nogent.
[286]Albert. lib. iii.
[287]Albert.
[288]Ibid.
[289]Albert; Raoul de Caen. See also Fulcher, who was chaplain to Baldwin.
[290]Albert of Aix; Raoul of Caen.
[291]Albert of Aix; William of Tyre; Raimond d’Agiles.
[292]Albert of Aix; William of Tyre.
[293]Raimond d’Agiles.
[294]Robert. Mon. lib. iii. Albert of Aix; Guibert.
[295]Albert of Aix.
[296]William of Tyre.
[297]Albert of Aix.
[298]The population of these countries was in general Christian.
[299]Fulcher; Albert.
[300]Albert; Guibert, lib. iii.
[301]Guibert.
[302]Albert.
[303]Guibert, lib. iii.; where see the manner in which Baldwin contrived to subjugate the inhabitants.
[304]Albert of Aix.
[305]Guibert.
[306]Albert.
[307]Mills declares, that the Christians were rescued from this ambuscade by the arrival of Tancred. I find the account of Albert of Aix totally opposed to such a statement; while the passage in Raoul of Caen relating to this event is so full of errors in other respects, that no reliance could be placed upon it, even if it justified the assertion of Mills, which, however, it does not do. He states, that Tancred arrived long before the ambuscade, and that he found Baldwin at Artesia. By this he might mean Baldwin de Bourg, who, after the other Baldwin became King of Jerusalem, was also created Count of Edessa; but this interpretation cannot be admitted here, as he mentions the former disputes between the soldiers of Tancred and of the Baldwin to whom he refers, and who could therefore be none other than the brother of Godfrey, who was, we know, in Edessa at the time. We may therefore conclude, that as a principal part of this account is notoriously false, Raoul of Caen cannot be considered as any authority, so far as this event is concerned. Finding the statement of Tancred’s assistance here not confirmed by any other good authority, I have abided by the account of Albert.
[308]Albert of Aix.
[309]Raimond d’Agiles.
[310]Will. Tyr., Raimond.
[311]Albert of Aix.
[312]Raimond; Guibert of Nogent.
[313]Raimond; Albert says six hundred thousand; Guibert of Nogent.
[314]Raimond.
[315]Raimond d’Agiles; Albert d’Aix; Guibert de Nogent, lib. iv.; Robert.
[316]Raimond d’Agiles; Albert of Aix; Guibert de Nogent.
[317]Malmsbury.
[318]Albert; Raimond d’Agiles.
[319]Guibert de Nogent; Robertus Monachus, lib. iv.
[320]Guibert; Albert; Robert. Mon.
[321]Raimond d’Agiles.
[322]Ibid; Guibert; Robertus Monachus.
[323]Guibert says he was a boasting coward; but this is contradicted by others.
[324]Guibert de Nogent; Robert.
[325]Guibert; Robertus Monachus, lib. iv.
[326]Robert. Monac.
[327]Albert of Aix.
[328]Raimond d’Agiles; Vertot; Guibert; William of Tyre.
[329]This is one of the points on which the authorities of the day are in direct opposition to each other. Mills has chosen the opinion of Robertus Monachus, who states that the message of the calif was haughty and insolent. I have followed another version of the story, because I find it supported by a greater weight of evidence, and because I do not think the calif would have taken the trouble of sending all the way from Egypt to insult a party of men whose persevering conduct showed that they were not likely to be turned back by words. Guibert says, that the calif promised even to embrace the Christian faith, in case the crusaders overcame the Turks, and restored to him his Syrian dominions. Albert of Aix also vouches the same proposal, which, however improbable might have been made for the purpose of deceiving the crusaders.
[330]Robertson’s Historical Disquisition on India.
[331]Robert, lib. iv.
[332]Albert of Aix.
[333]Albert; Robert. Mon.
[334]Albert of Aix, lib. iii.