To Bertrand Beix, for having served, or waited at, the tronc of St.

Stephen of Thoulouse, for the space of fifteen days, the sum of

seventeen sols, six deniers Tournois

17s. 6d.

For the dinner[175] which was made for those who were present to see

the money counted from the tronc of the said St. Stephen of Thoulouse,

and for the cook, the sum of seventy-two sols Tournois

72s.

To the preachers of Thoulouse, for having preached the said pardons,

the sum of eighteen livres Tournois; this

18 liv.

To Master Jehan Bourlier, notary,[176] for having attended the placing

and removing of the said troncs, in the said diocese of Thoulouse, for

the space of fifteen days, at the period of Easter, the sum of fifteen

livres Tournois

15 liv.

To Master Jehan Terrein, of Thoulouse, the sum of a hundred sols

Tournois, for having superintended the giving out of the letters, and

obtaining the names and surnames of those who took them to the church

of Thoulouse, at Easter, this

100s.

To the bell-ringers of the said St. Stephen, for ringing the bells and

cleaning the church, the sum of forty sols Tournois; this

40s.

To those who sealed the confessionals of the said crusade and jubilee,

the sum of six livres Tournois, this

6 liv.

To Messire Jehan Bonissent, secretary of Monseigneur de Thoulouse, for

having made eight mandatory letters on parchment, and having signed

four hundred articles to be posted upon the doors of churches, the sum

of six livres Tournois, this

6 liv.

To Jehan Grant, printer, for having printed a thousand small articles,

and a hundred confessionals, on parchment, the sum of one hundred and

ten livres Tournois; this

110 liv.

To Jehan Bodret, apothecary, of Thoulouse, for thirty-one pounds of

red wax, and also for four quires of paper, the sum of ten livres,

seventeen sols, six deniers Tournois; this

1O liv. 17s. 6d.

To Master Guillaume de Villano, notary, for having signed and filled

up the confessionals and commissions, and having made the other acts

of the said crusade, the sum of ten livres Tournois; this

10 liv.

To the Receiver of the said crusade, for having been to place the

troncs and collect the money, for the attendance of thirteen days, the

sum of twenty-eight livres Tournois

28 liv.

To Monsieur the Comptroller of the said crusade, for the same cause,

the sum of twenty-eight livres Tournois; this

28 liv.

To Monsieur the Commissary of the said crusade, with three horses, for

the same cause, the sum of forty livres Tournois; this

40 liv.

To Master Jehan Bourlier, for having made two duplicates of the

receipt and expense of the said crusade, the sum of thirty sols

Tournois; this

30s.

To Raymond de Vlino, for having made three hundred and fifty coats

of arms, at twelve deniers Tournois each, amounting to the sum of

seventeen livres, ten sols Tournois; this

17 liv. 10s.

To those who sealed the said confessionals, both on parchment and on

paper, and for having folded them, the sum of four livres Tournois

4 liv.

Then follows a list of amounts paid to preachers of the crusade, which

is far too long for insertion, but all tending to prove that the task

was not performed gratuitously. We have extracted the above articles

from the interminable account to show our readers something of the

nature of the charges made by various classes for work done early in

the sixteenth century, but more particularly to point out, after the

money had been extorted from the pious or the charitable, how many

hands were dipped into the troncs before their contents were applied

to their destined purpose. _The preachers, as appears by the following

items and many others of the account, took a fifth part of what was

found in the troncs at the time of opening them._

To the preachers who have preached in the city of Thoulouse, for

the fifth part of four hundred and nine livres, sixteen sols, eight

deniers Tournois, which have been found in the said tronc, opened at

several festivals, has been paid over the sum of eighty-one livres,

nineteen sols, four deniers Tournois; this

81 liv. 19s. 4d.

To the preacher of Lisle en Jourdain, for HIS fifth part of one

hundred and ninety-eight livres, three sols, seven deniers Tournois;

this

39 liv. 3s. 7d.

Nobody seems to have touched the tronc without benefit; thus there

are sixty sols to Jehan Turein for taking charge of the tronc, at

Easter; and fifteen sols to a child who _cried_ at the tronc. The high

officials took each one hundred livres per annum whilst the crusade was

being preached, and their underlings did nothing without remuneration.

_No. 38._

_Memoir of Leibnitz, addressed to Louis XIV._

After the example of M. Michaud, we do not hesitate to lay before our

readers the following paper, although it bears little relation to

our history. A document passing between two such men as Leibnitz and

Louis XIV., upon a speculative, yet an important question, cannot be

without interest; besides which, there is very little doubt that it

fell into the hands of Buonaparte before he undertook his expedition to

Egypt. It is generally believed that this Memoir of Leibnitz, upon the

expedition to Egypt, was preserved, up to the period of the revolution,

in the archives of Versailles, and that this historical document

disappeared during the political troubles of France. An extract from

it was published in an English pamphlet in 1805; and another extract

was made in a book entitled _Voyage en Hanovre_, published in 1805. M.

Michaud has made more use of the English pamphlet than of the latter

publication. M. Mangourit, the author of the Voyage, saw in the library

of Hanover a copy of the Memoir addressed to Louis XIV., written by

the hand of Leibnitz; it had for title, _De Expeditione Egyptiatica,

Epistola ad Regem Franciæ scripta_. M. Mangourit informs us that

Marshal Mortier ordered a copy to be made of it, to be sent to Paris,

where it was placed in the library of the king. It appears that the

Memoir was sent a short time before the famous passage of the Rhine and

the war against Holland. M. Mangourit is persuaded that Leibnitz, whom

he represents as the instrument of some cabinet, had no other motive in

persuading Louis to invade Egypt but to divert him from his threatened

attack upon the Batavian republic. M. Michaud says that this opinion

appears improbable, and that the author gives no satisfactory proof of

it. We think some of our readers, at least, will incline to the opinion

of M. Mangourit.

Leibnitz commences his Memoir by declaring that the fame of his

majesty’s wisdom has induced him to present to him some reflections

upon a subject familiar to preceding ages, but recently neglected

and forgotten; it concerns an enterprise, “the greatest that can be

attempted, and at the same time the most easy of such as are considered

great. I venture to add,” continues he, “that it is the most holy,

the most just (_addere audeo, sanctissimum justissimumque_), and that

it is not accompanied by any danger, even should it be attempted in

vain. It agrees likewise so well with the kind of preparations already

made, that it would appear to have been a long time in contemplation,

and would thus increase the admiration of those who justly call the

conceptions of your majesty _the miracle of secrecy_. It would do more

harm to Holland than could be hoped for from the most brilliant success

of an open war, without leaving them the power of opposing any obstacle

to it. It would accomplish the object of the present armament, by

procuring for France the empire of the seas and of commerce. In short,

all hatreds and all jealousies being thus extinguished at a single

blow, your majesty would find yourself raised by it, with general

assent, to the rank of supreme arbiter of Christendom—the highest

possible to be conceived, and it would cover your name with an immortal

glory, for having cleared, whether for yourself or your descendants,

the route for exploits similar to those of Alexander.”

After having made it plain that the present moment was exceedingly

favourable, that there was no sovereign more powerful than the king of

France, or one more beloved by his subjects; “I am persuaded,” says he,

“that there is not in the known world any country the conquest of which

deserves so much to be attempted, or which would be so likely to give

supremacy, as the Egypt which I delight in calling the Holland of the

East, as I call France the China of the West.”

“The marriage between this prince and this country, that is to say,

between the king of France and Egypt, appears to me to interest equally

the human race and the Christian religion.”

Leibnitz afterwards says, that upon examining the motives which

determined Louis IX. to attempt the conquest of Egypt rather than that

of Jerusalem, he had become convinced that they merit the greatest

attention.

“After the death of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, Philip, surnamed

Augustus, and Richard, king of England, besieged and took St. Jean

d’Acre. There was among the prisoners an Arabian named Caracous, whom

history represents as a prophet. This man, hearing Philip frequently

speak of the aim the Christian powers proposed to themselves in this

war, declared that they could never retain Jerusalem and the Christian

sovereignty in Asia, unless the Egyptian monarchy were overthrown; and

for that purpose it was of the greatest importance to get possession of

Damietta. From this arose a dissension between Philip and Richard, &c.

Richard himself, after having failed in Palestine, wished to undertake

an expedition against Egypt, but death prevented him.

“The Christian powers at length became aware of their error, and Pope

Innocent III. promoted an expedition against Egypt, the issue of which

was unfortunate. Then came the expedition of St. Louis, which failed

from the imprudence and want of skill in the leaders. Louis exposed his

army in the interior of the country, between two branches of the Nile,

with his rear and the course of the river in the power of the enemy.

Instead of getting possession of the coasts and securing the Nile for

his fleet, the only means of establishing his conquest, provisioning

his army, and making himself safe from all attacks, he allowed himself

to be surrounded; the Saracens intercepted his supplies, and finished

by destroying the Christian army.

“Afterwards, the wars between France and England, as well as those

which broke out between France and the house of Austria, put an end

to all idea of invading Egypt, till the time of Ximenes, who was

the author of a league, formed for the conquest of this country,

by Ferdinand of Castile, Emanuel of Portugal, and Henry VIII. of

England.[177] Three princes,” says Leibnitz, “of whom it may, with

reason, be said, that each of them laid the foundation of the power and

commerce of their respective people; and that it is which France now

expects from Louis XIV.

“This project was defeated by the death of Ferdinand, which caused the

crown of Spain to pass to the house of Austria.”

Leibnitz then gives a sketch of the revolutions of Egypt, from the

earliest ages to the time it was subdued by the Turks; to show the

importance that has always been attached to the possession of Egypt,

and to prove that it has never opposed much resistance to a skilful and

powerful conqueror.

“Egypt, now become a province of the Turkish empire, will be, on that

account, more easily subdued; not only from the difficulty the Port

will have in throwing in succours, and the inclination the inhabitants

always have for revolt, but still more from its being no longer the

seat of an empire.”

After this preamble, Leibnitz, developing his plan, argues that the

conquest of Egypt is the most certain road to supremacy in Europe;

or, in other terms, that it will strengthen the best interests of

France,—that, considering the magnitude of the object, the enterprise

is very easy;—that there is no risk;—that it is in accordance with

sound policy;—that it should not be delayed;—in short, that it is

great, just, and pious.

“This supremacy, which it is so important for France to obtain,

consists in the possession of as much power as can be reasonably

hoped for; for it cannot look to a universal monarchy, but only the

general direction or arbitration of affairs. Universal monarchy is

an absurdity; the history of Europe proves it. By making war upon

Christian states, weak aggrandisements can alone be obtained, and a

small accession of territory acquired. Such means are not suitable for

a most Christian king, or a great monarch:—marriages, elections, and

successions produce more.

“War should alone be directed against barbarous nations; and among

these, it is incontestable that by a single fortunate blow (and the

French are particularly formed to strike such), empires may be in an

instant overthrown and founded. In such wars are found the elements of

high power, and of an exalted glory.

“It is certain that the power of France must increase with the peace of

Europe, and that it must be weakened by ill-timed wars. Let it then be

employed against the barbarians, and for the restoration of Egypt. In

America, the Spaniards, the English, and the Dutch would render every

enterprise impossible; but, directed towards Turkey, no one would dare

to oppose it; Egypt being once invaded, the war that we should then

make would be rendered sacred by universal approbation; and instead of

the deserted countries of Palestine, only celebrated by its ruins, we

should have, as the rewards of our efforts, _that eye of countries,

that mother of grain, that seat of commerce. (Non, deserta illa, ruinis

tantùm nobilis Palæstina, sed oculus regionum, mater frugum, sedes

commerciorum acquiretur.)_

“Of all the regions of the earth, Egypt ought to be considered,

after China, as the first. It possesses so many advantages, that the

imagination can add nothing to them. It is the principal isthmus of

the globe, the seas of which it divides in such a manner, as to create

the necessity for passing round Africa. It is at the same time the

barrier and the passage between Africa and Asia. It is the point of

communication, and the general entrepôt of the commerce, on one side,

of India, and on the other, of Europe. It is in some sort the eye of

the adjacent countries, rich by the fertility of its soil, and by its

great population, amidst the deserts which surround it. It unites the

wonders of nature and of art, which, after so many ages, ever appear to

furnish subjects for fresh admiration.”

After having supported his opinions by numerous quotations upon the

resources Egypt possesses, Leibnitz continues thus:—

“Suppose Egypt should be occupied by an army of the most Christian

king, we shall see how much this event must contribute to political

supremacy. (_Pars melior Franciæ cedet; hæc maris Mediterranei domina,

imperium Orientalis resuscitabit._)

“It is evident that the Turkish empire might be overthrown by the

attacks of the Germans and the Poles, if the germs of rebellion, which

are there now forming, were developed generally; and there is no doubt

that Muscovy and Persia would take advantage of that circumstance.

Then, the most valuable portion of that monarchy would fall to France;

which, becoming thus mistress of the Mediterranean, would reëstablish

the Eastern empire. From Egypt it would extend its empire over the

ocean, and would take, without difficulty, possession of the Red Sea,

and the isles near Madagascar. It would not be long in gaining the Sea

of Ethiopia, the Persian Gulf, and the isle of Ormuz, which commands it.

“The conquest of Egypt would likewise be followed by great and

important changes in Europe. The king of France could then, by

incontestable right, and with the consent of the pope, assume the

title of emperor of the East; he could add to his title of eldest

son, that of patron (_advocatus_) of the Church, and by the great

advantages procured to the Holy See, hold the pontiffs much more in

his power than if they resided at Avignon. Italy and Germany would be

definitively delivered from the fear of the Turks, and Spain from that

of the Moors. The commerce of the world would be shared between France

and the house of Austria; at length, the reconciliation between the

most powerful families would be cemented to the satisfaction of both,

France having for its share the East, and Spain the West.[178] And if

they should wish to be united by the indissoluble tie of their common

interest, they would gain the object which the wisest of ministers

have endeavoured to attain in the conferences of the Pyrenees; they

would become the arbitrators between other powers; they would prepare

the happiness of the human race, and they would create an everlasting

reverence for the memory of the great king, to whom so many miracles

were due.

“With Egypt, the Dutch might easily be deprived of the commerce of

India, upon which great part of their power depends, and they would

by that be more directly and necessarily injured than by the most

brilliant success in an open war. The Christian religion would again

flourish in Asia; the world would obey the same laws, and the whole

human race would be united by the same ties; so _that, with the

exception of the philosopher’s stone, I know nothing that can be

imagined of more importance than the conquest of Egypt_.”

When discussing the facility of the execution, Leibnitz considers

siders—“The forces to be employed—the means of transporting the

troops—the climate of the country—its fortifications and military

strength—the manner of making war there—the interior troubles of

Egypt—the dispositions of the neighbouring nations—and the allies and

auxiliaries, as well of the aggressors as of the invaded country.”

With respect to the forces of France, Leibnitz refers to Louis, who

must be better acquainted with their numbers than he; he however

believes that there is in fact already more strength than would be

required.

Francis, duke of Urbino, demanded 50,000 men to overturn the Ottoman

empire. For the conquest of Egypt, thirty thousand picked men would

be sufficient. Emanuel the Wise, king of Portugal, flattered himself

that he could succeed with a much smaller number. “There is no doubt,”

adds Leibnitz, “that our numbers would prodigiously increase in a short

time, by the accession of Arabs and Numidians, whilst the Turkish

forces in that province must be very inconsiderable.

“But suppose,” continues Leibnitz, “we were compelled to embark 50,000

men; that is a force which France would easily provide. For, although

I am persuaded that 20,000 would amply suffice to occupy and guard the

coast of Egypt, it would be prudent to draw advantage from the forces

now assembled, and to effect by one stroke, by one vigorous operation,

the conquest of the whole of Egypt.” Leibnitz further advises that the

troops should be encouraged by speeches, indulgences, rewards, honours,

&c. &c.; thinks it of much less importance to employ a great number of

troops than it is to select them well.

“Some persons are averse to the transporting of large armies by

sea; but wiser persons are of a contrary opinion, and think that

the trifling inconveniences of this mode of transport are more than

compensated by very great advantages. The first inconveniences to which

they are subject on board, are neither dangerous nor of long duration;

they may be considered even as evacuations favourable to health.

Scorbutic affections appear only in long voyages, and acute diseases

are occasioned by intemperance, which discipline may prevent, or by a

change of climate, which cannot be experienced in the Mediterranean. No

mutiny need be apprehended, because the soldiers are in some sort in

the power of the sailors.”

The memorial of Leibnitz here presents an historical summary of the

armies embarked at different periods, from the Punic wars to the last

conquests made in Asia and America, by the Spaniards, the Portuguese,

the English, &c.; and whilst recommending that the vessels should not

be too heavily laden as regards troops, he remarks that the navigation

of the Mediterranean has, for a long time, become familiar to French

sailors, and that there could be no danger, if proper attention were

paid to seasons. French and Venetian vessels constantly visit Candia,

and from that island to Egypt the passage is not difficult. Let us add,

that the isle of Malta is a secure station for the fleet, that isle

being united to France by an infinite number of ties, since the major

part of the knights and the grand master of the order are French.

“After the port of Alexandria shall have been taken by a coup-de-main

(which cannot fail of succeeding), the coasts of Syria, as well as the

isles of Cyprus and Candia, will necessarily fall, provided that the

Turks are not able to undertake anything by sea to oppose it.”

The memorial of Leibnitz then rejects all fear of the insalubrity of

the climate of Egypt; he expatiates upon the healthy qualities of the

waters of the Nile, gives dietic rules, recommends abstinence from

wine, and points out the variations in the weather in the different

months of the year.

Then he speaks of the saltpetre which Egypt produces in such abundance,

and continues: “The means of the natural defences of Egypt are the

deserts and seas that surround it, and the Nile; its artificial

means are its castles and its cities. The sea and the Nile, far from

injuring, facilitate the employment of naval forces, and the deserts

will interrupt communications with the other parts of the Ottoman

empire, and will prevent the Turks from throwing imposing succours

into the Egyptian territory. The strong places are either upon the Red

Sea or upon the Mediterranean.” Here Leibnitz describes Alexandria,

Rosetta, and Damietta, with the Bozag, pointing out the weakness of

these places. “The coast of the Red Sea is still more neglected, and

would fall quickly into the power of a Portuguese fleet, acting in

concert with a French force from Madagascar;” for Leibnitz supposes

that the Portuguese would be more disposed to second the views of the

French than to oppose them.

The memorial describes very minutely the Arabian Gulf and the Strait

of Bab-el-Mandel; he affirms that all places on the coast want

fortifications; he speaks particularly of Suez, Cossier, Souakem, and

at length of Cairo, which would not offer, any more than the rest, a

strong resistance.

“Could the resistance of Cairo,” says Leibnitz, “alone prevent France

from raising itself above all glory past or present? It would be

disgraceful for so powerful a nation, when engaged in such a mighty

enterprise, to entertain a moment’s doubt of final success in presence

of this last obstacle. For France would not be fighting then for either

Dunkirk or Gravelines, or for Maëstricht; but for the dominion of the

seas, for the empire of the East, for the overthrow of the Port, and

for universal supremacy;—all results from the conquest of Egypt.”

Then follow some geographical details upon the coast of Syria, and the

ports and cities of that country; that is to say, El-Aresch, Byblos,

Tripoli, Alexandretta, Aleppo, and Damascus.

“Alexandretta commands the defiles of Cilicia. By the possession of

this place, an army marching from Asia Minor upon Palestine could

be forced to make a long and painful circuit, across a country half

desert, and across portions of Cilicia, Armenia, and Mesopotamia.

“Aleppo and Damascus are the only cities capable of resisting for a

moment our ulterior operations after the reduction of Cairo. Although

they are distant from the sea, they must be secured, since then we

shall command all the country on this side of Mount Amanus.

“The Turks may, it is true, if they are warned, place reinforcements

in Egypt, and even fortify Alexandria and render Egypt nearly

inaccessible. It will therefore be essential to preserve the most

profound secrecy upon the project, and accelerate the departure of the

armament for its destination. When the expedition shall be once made,

it will be no longer in the power of the Turks to place an obstacle in

the way of its success, since the departure of so formidable a fleet

will give alarm for the seat of government itself. Under this point

of view it will be even useful to spread a report that it is in fact

destined against Constantinople, in order that the Port should unite

and concentrate, for the protection of the capital, its divided forces,

and thus render the distant provinces the weaker. The French army being

thus suddenly thrown into Egypt, it would require six months for the

Turks to assemble an equal force, or even a much longer time, if Turkey

were at the same time engaged in a Polish or Hungarian war. Moreover,

as soon as the expedition should have succeeded, Persia, which cannot

declare itself upon our promises alone, will not fail to rise likewise.

And if the expedition took place in that season of the year which,

according to the opinion of experienced persons, would appear the most

suitable, it would be absolutely impossible for the Turks to arrive in

any useful time, if even they had 100,000 disposable forces; because

Egypt would be then inundated with the waters of the Nile, in which our

fleet would dominate; and because the Turkish army could not set out on

its march before the following winter, &c.

“Suppose now that Egypt should be in our power, and, which is not at

all improbable, the Turks should find themselves at peace with all

their neighbours, that there should be no trouble among themselves, and

that they should be in a condition to advance with 100,000 effective

men; suppose, on the other side, that we were only able to oppose

this force with 30,000 men, since we must leave 20,000 behind, to

maintain our position in Egypt, and reduce the places not yet subdued:

I affirm that these 30,000 men would be sufficient to repulse the

Turks: let us add, that if measures be well taken, there is no doubt

that considerable reinforcements might arrive from Europe, and that the

Christian subjects of the Port, as well as the natives, would flock

eagerly to range themselves under our Banners. But suppose our force

did not exceed 30,000 men, this troop would be perfectly in a state to

resist the Turks by two different manœuvres, whether by waiting for

them in the plains of Egypt, between Suez and Cairo; or whether in

marching forward to meet them in Arabia Petræa, between Gaza and the

mountains, or in Syria between Alexandretta and Mount Amanus, called

now the mount of Scanderoun, or El Lucan.

“There are in Arabia Petræa three narrow defiles, through which the

caravans pass on their way from Egypt into Asia. One of these defiles

is on the right, when we are coming from Egypt, and leads to the

eastern shores of the Red Sea; another passage is on the left, on

the shores of the Mediterranean,—it leads into Palestine and Syria;

the third, situated between the two preceding ones, comes out at

Mount Horeb, and at the monastery of St. Catherine. The two first

passages lead into Arabia, where no army could penetrate without great

difficulty. There only remains then the third route, which goes from

Egypt into Palestine, across Idumea. But this passage is so narrowed

on one side by the Mediterranean Sea, and on the other by the foot of

the mountains of Arabia Petræa, that the sultan of Egypt would easily

have expelled the army of Selim from his country, if he had taken care

to secure the passage between Syria and Cilicia: it was by neglecting

this precaution that Darius very much facilitated the conquest of Asia

by Alexander. If the sultan of the Mamelukes, abandoning Palestine,

had taken up a position in the narrow strait near Gaza, or near Sihor

(called in Scripture the river of Egypt), which is a species of hollow

ravine, running from the mountains to the sea, and if he had there

awaited his enemy, it is certain that in that position, 30,000 men

would have been able to resist hundreds of thousands.

“Suppose the Turks were able to force not only the passage of

Alexandretta, but likewise that of Gaza, they yet could not recover

Egypt; for, in this case, our army would keep in its rear the Nile and

a very fertile country, whilst the enemy would have nothing in their

rear but the deserts of Arabia. And if, in this position, we were to

avoid a pitched battle, which would be easy from the nature of the

country, the Turkish army would necessarily waste away, and would be

forced, by want of provisions, to retire into Syria, and leave us in

the tranquil enjoyment of our conquests.”

Leibnitz brings several historical facts to the support of his opinion;

he proves that the Turks are much less formidable, less warlike, less

numerous than they formerly were; he enters into details upon the

seraglio, the revenues, and the military and maritime establishments of

the Ottoman empire.

The author assigns reasons for hoping that, after the first news of

the success of Louis XIV., there would ensue partial revolts, and then

a general insurrection of the pachas, the civil functionaries, the

soldiers, the Christians, and finally of the whole people. “I venture

to affirm,” says he, “that all the subjects of the Ottoman empire are

unhappy, discontented, anxious for change, and that at this moment they

are only restrained by the disheartening remembrance of their former

attempts to throw off the yoke.

“A French author, very well acquainted with the affairs of Turkey,

and who is surprised that an empire so constituted subsists so long,

forms the conjecture that God, who does everything for the best, had

raised and sustained this powerful nation for the good of his Church,

and to punish Christians for their sins and vices;’ but I,” continues

Leibnitz,—“I am convinced that the time approaches in which the

Omnipotent will visit his people, in which the fury of barbarians will

be at an end, in which a far happier epoch will open on the Christian

world. Much might be said with regard to prophecies; upon periods in

human affairs; upon the inevitable catastrophes of empires; even upon

the traditions of the Turks themselves, which make them look for their

destruction from a country between two seas. This prediction has been

commonly applied to Constantinople, and sometimes to the Morea; but no

one has hitherto thought of Egypt.

“Let us, however, without presuming to penetrate the secrets of

destiny, draw our conclusions from the ordinary course of affairs. It

is notorious that the Sultan has entirely lost, in the opinion of his

subjects, his character of inviolability, and this circumstance must

necessarily facilitate his defeat.”

All that follows this is but a picture of the disorder which reigns

in the political organization of the Turkish empire. Therefore,

Leibnitz thinks that the conquest of Egypt would shake the Port to its

foundation. He adds: “_Audaciter dico, flagrabit Turcia seditionibus,

si volumus_; and if the Port were at the same time engaged in a war

with Poland or Hungary, _jam ruina ipsa_,” says he, “_et totius

corporis paralysis universalis indubitata est_.”

_No. 39._

_Capitulations between France and the Ottoman Port._

Francis I. was the first of our kings who made treaties with the Port.

He obtained in 1535, from Soliman the Canonist, the first capitulations

in favour of commerce and of the Catholic religion, in the states of

the Grand Seignor; in 1604, Henry IV. obtained from the Sultan Ahmid

I. the renewal of them with some additions; in 1675 they were renewed

and augmented under the reign of the Sultan Mehemed IV., at the demand

of Louis XIV.; in 1740, Louis XV. obtained from the Sultan Mahmoud the

renewal of the ancient treaties, with considerable additions.

France has had since that period other negotiations with the Port;

but these negotiations have not produced any treaty, the dispositions

of which are either new or important. The documents necessary for the

history of the relations of France with the Ottoman empire have always

been carefully preserved in the chancery of the French embassy at

Constantinople. It is there we must search for exact notices to add to

that which we have been able to advance upon this question.

We will give, from these capitulations, as much as particularly

concerns the subject of our history, or which may throw a light upon

the Ottoman policy.

“The Emperor Sultan Mahmoud, son of Sultan Moustapha, ever

victorious.[179]

“Here is that which ordains this glorious and imperial signature,

conqueror of the world, this noble and sublime mark, whose efficacy

proceeds from divine aid.

“I, who by the excellence of the favours of the Most High, and by

the eminence of the miracles filled with blessings from the chief of

the prophets (to whom be the most ample salutations, as well as to

his family and his companions), am the Sultan of glorious sultans,

the emperor of puissant emperors, the distributor of crowns to the

Cosroes, who are seated on thrones, the shadow of God upon earth, the

servant of the two illustrious cities of Mecca and Medina, august and

holy places, to which Mussulmans address their vows; the protector and

master of the holy Jerusalem; the sovereign of the three great cities

of Constantinople, Adrianople, and Broussa, as well as of Damascus,

the odour of Paradise; of Tripoli, of Syria, of Egypt, the wonder

of ages, and renowned for its delights; of all Arabia; of Africa, of

Cairovan, of Aleppo, of Irak, Arab, and Adgen; of Bassora, of Lahra, of

Dilem, and particularly of Bagdad, capital of the caliphs; of Rakka,

of Mossoul, of Chehregour, of Diarbeker, of Zulkadric, of Ergerum the

Delightful; of Sebarta, of Adana, of Caramenia, of Kars, of Ichidder,

of Van, of the isles of the Morea, of Candia, of Cyprus, Chio, and

Rhodes; of Barbary, of Ethiopia; of the places of war, Algiers,

Tripoli, and Tunis; of the isles and the coasts of the White Sea and of

the Black Sea; of the countries of Natolia, and the kingdom of Romelia;

of all Kurdestan, of Greece, of Turkomania, of Tartary, of Circassia,

of Cabarta, and of Georgia; of the noble tribes of the Tartars, and of

all the hordes which depend upon them; of Caffa, and other surrounding

places; of all Bosnia and its dependencies; of the fortress of

Belgrade, a place of war; of Servia, as well as of the fortresses and

castles existing in it; of the countries of Albania, of all Wallachia,

of Moldavia, and of the forts and holds which are in these cantons;

possessor besides of a number of cities and fortresses, of which it is

superfluous to repeat or boast the names. I, who am emperor, asylum of

justice and king of kings, the centre of victory, Sultan, son of the

Sultan, Emperor Mahmoud the conqueror, son of Sultan Mustafa, son of

Sultan Muhammed: I, who by my power, the origin of facility, am adorned

with the title of emperor of the two lands, and as a crowning grandeur

to my caliphate, am illustrated by the title of emperor of the two seas.

“The glory of the great princes of the faith of Jesus, the elect of

the great and the magnificent of the religion of the Messiah, the

arbitrator and mediator in the affairs of Christian nations, clothed

with true marks of dignity and honour, filled with grandeur, with

glory and majesty, the emperor of France, and of other vast kingdoms

which depend upon it, our very magnificent, very honoured, sincere,

and ancient friend, Louis XV., to whom God grant all success and

felicity, having sent to our august court, which is the seat of the

caliphate, a letter containing evidences of the most perfect sincerity,

and of the most particular affection, candour, and uprightness, and

the same letter being destined for our Sublime Port of felicity,

which, by the infinite goodness of the incontestably majestic Supreme

Being, is the abode of sultans the most magnificent, of emperors the

most respectable; the model of Christian nobles, skilful, prudent,

esteemed, and honoured minister, Louis Sauveur, marquis de Villeneuve,

your present counsellor of state, and your ambassador to our Port of

felicity (may the end of which be crowned with good fortune), having

demanded permission to present and remit the said letter, which has

been granted to him by our imperial consent, conformably with the

ancient usages of our court; and consequently the said ambassador

having been admitted to the foot of our imperial throne, surrounded

with the light of glory, he has there delivered the said letter, and

has been the representative of your majesty, in participating our

imperial grace and favour; the translation of its friendly tenor was

afterwards presented and reported, according to the ancient customs

of the Ottomans, at the foot of our sublime throne, by the channel

of the very honoured Elhadjy Mehemed Pacha, our first minister, the

absolute interpreter of our ordinances, the ornament of the world, the

support of the good order of nations, the orderer of the grades of our

empire, the instrument of the glory of our crown, the channel for the

favours of royal majesty, the very virtuous Grand Vizier, my venerable

and fortunate minister and lieutenant-general, of whose power and

prosperity may God perpetuate the triumph!

“And as the expressions of this friendly letter make known the

desire and eagerness of your majesty to preserve, as heretofore, all

the honours and ancient friendship, hitherto maintained from time

immemorial between our glorious ancestors (may the light of God be upon

them), and the very magnificent emperors of France; and as in the said

letter there is question, in consideration of the sincere friendship

and the particular attachment that France has always evinced towards

our imperial house, again to renew, during the happy period of our

glorious reign, and to strengthen and enlighten, by the addition of

some articles, the imperial capitulations, already renewed in the year

of the Hegyra 1084, under the reign of the late Sultan Mehemed, our

august grandfather, noble and generous during his life, and happy in

his death; which capitulations had for object, _that the ambassadors,

consuls, interpreters, merchants, and other subjects of France, should

be protected and maintained in all peace and tranquillity_,[180] and

it has at length arrived at our imperial knowledge that these points

have been conferred upon by the said ambassador and the minister of

the Sublime Port: the foundations of the friendship which, from time

immemorial, has subsisted with firmness between the court of France

and our Sublime Port, and the convincing proofs which your majesty has

given of it, particularly during our glorious reign, giving reason

to hope that the ties of such a friendship can only be drawn closer,

and become stronger from day to day; these motives have inspired us

with sentiments conformable with your desires; and wishing to procure

activity in commerce, and security to goers and comers, which are the

fruits such a friendship ought to produce; we not only confirm by these

presents in their full extent, the ancient and renewed capitulations,

as well as the articles concerted at the above date, but to procure

more ease for our merchants and greater vigour in commerce, we have

granted them exemption from the right of _Mezeterie_, which they have

paid at all times, as well as several other points concerning commerce,

and the safety of comers and goers, which have been discussed, treated

of, and regulated, in good and due form, in the divers conferences

which have been held upon the subject, between the said ambassador,

furnished with sufficient power, and the persons deputed on the part of

our Sublime Port. After the entire conclusion of all, my supreme and

absolute Grand Vizier, having rendered an account of it to our imperial

Stirrup, and it being our will to show specially on this occasion

the value and esteem that we entertain for the ancient and constant

friendship of the emperor of France, who has just given us fresh and

particular marks of the sincerity of his heart, we have granted our

sign imperial for the execution of the articles newly concluded, and

consequently of the ancient and renewed capitulations; having been

transcribed and reported exactly, word for word from the commencement,

and followed by the articles newly regulated and granted; these

present imperial capitulations have been placed and consigned, in the

above-said order, in the hands of the aforesaid ambassador.”

Articles 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 of the capitulations contain what

follows:—“As inimical nations, who have no positive ambassadors at

my Port of felicity, formerly went and came in our states, under the

banner of the emperor of France, whether for commerce, whether for

pilgrimage, according to the imperial permission they had had for it

under the reigns of our ancestors of glorious memory, as likewise

it was granted by the ancient capitulations accorded to the French:

and as afterwards, for certain reasons, the entrance to our states

was positively prohibited to these same nations, and they were even

withdrawn from the said capitulations; nevertheless, the emperor

of France having evinced by the letter he has sent to our Port of

felicity, that he should wish that the inimical nations, to whom

trading in our states has been forbidden, might have liberty to come

and go to Jerusalem, in the same manner as they were accustomed

to go and come, without being in any way interrupted; and that if

consequently it were permitted them to come and traffic in our states,

it should be under the banner of France, as formerly, the demand of

the emperor of France has been complied with, in consideration of the

ancient friendship, which from the times of my glorious ancestors has

subsisted, from father to son, between your majesty and the Sublime

Port, and we have issued an imperial edict, of which the following is

the tenor:—That the Christian and inimical nations which are at peace

with the emperor of France, and who shall desire to visit Jerusalem,

may go thither and return, within the boundaries of their state, in the

customary manner, and in full liberty and security, without any person

causing them trouble or impediment; and if it should afterwards prove

convenient to grant to the said nations the liberty of trading in our

states, they will then go and come under the banner of the emperor of

France as formerly, without being allowed to go and come under any

other banner.

“The ancient imperial capitulations, which have been in the hands of

the French since the reigns of my magnificent ancestors to the present

day, and which have just been reported in detail above, having been now

renewed with an addition of some new articles, conformably with the

imperial order, issued in virtue of my khatt-cherif; the first of these

articles declares, that the bishops dependent upon France, and the

other ecclesiastics who profess the French religion, of whatever nation

or race they may be, as long as they shall keep within the limits of

their state, shall not be troubled in the exercise of their functions

in those parts of our empire where they have been long settled.

“The French ecclesiastics who, according to ancient custom, are

established within and without the city of Jerusalem, in the church of

the Holy Sepulchre called Kamama, shall not be disturbed in the places

of visitation which they inhabit, and which are in their hands, which

shall remain still in their hands as formerly, without being disturbed

in that respect, or by the imposition of tributes; and should any

dispute arise, which cannot be decided on the spot, it shall be sent to

my Sublime Port.

“The French, or those who depend upon them, of whatever nation or

quality they may be, who desire to go to Jerusalem, shall not be

molested either in going or returning.

“The two religious orders which are at Galata, that is to say, the

Jesuits and the Capuchins, having two churches there, which have been

in their hands _ab antiquo_, they shall remain in their hands, and they

shall retain the possession and the advantages of them: and as one of

these churches has been burnt, it shall be rebuilt as justice requires,

and it shall remain, as formerly, in the hands of the Capuchins,

without molestation or disturbance. There shall be no uneasiness

entertained with regard to the churches the French have at Smyrna,

Seyda, Alexandria, and other _Echelles_; and no money shall be required

of them under any pretence.

“The French shall not be disturbed, when, within the bounds of their

own quarter, they read the Gospel in their hospital of Galata.”

Several of these dispositions not having been strictly executed, the

Port renewed them in 1740; this is the renewal, as it is expressed in

article 82.

“When the places, of which the ecclesiastics dependent upon France have

possession at Jerusalem, as has been mentioned in the articles solemnly

granted and now renewed, shall be in want of repair, to prevent the

ruin to which they would be exposed by the course of time, it shall

be permitted to grant, at the request of the ambassador of France,

residing at my Port of felicity, orders for their being repaired in

a way conformable to justice; and the cadis, commandants, and other

officers, shall not be allowed to throw any impediment in the way of

the things granted by order; and as it has happened that our officers,

under pretext of having made secret repairs in the said places, made

many visits in the course of the year, and extorted money from the

ecclesiastics, we command that, on the part of the cadis, commandants,

and other officers who may be there, there shall be only one visit made

in the year to the church of the place that is called the Sepulchre of

Jesus; and the same in the other churches and places of visitation. The

bishop and ecclesiastics dependent upon the emperor of France, who are

in my empire, shall be protected as long as they confine themselves

to the limits of their own state, and nobody shall prevent them from

performing their rites according to their own customs, in the churches

which are in their hands, as well as in the other places in which they

dwell: and when our tributary subjects and the French shall go and

come among one another, for the purpose of buying, selling, or other

affairs, they shall not be molested, against the same laws, on account

of this intercourse; and as it is decreed in the preceding stipulated

articles that they shall be allowed to read the Scriptures in the

hospital of Galata, and this has, nevertheless, not been done, we

order, that in whatever place that hospital may for the future be, in a

juridical form, they may be allowed to read the Scripture there, as is

their duty, without any inquietude upon the subject.”

The capitulations or treaties with the Port are too extensive to

allow us to give them entirely here. The articles, which amount

to eighty-five, regulate the rights of persons and the commercial

privileges of which the Port has granted the enjoyment to all the

French established or travelling in the countries of its domination;

they regulate also the diplomatic relations between the two powers, and

the prerogatives of the ambassadors of the king of France.

_No. 40._

_Note by M. Raynouard upon the Work by M. Hammer, entitled_ Mysterium

Baphometi Revelatum, _&c._

Since the proscription of the knights of the Temple and the abolition

of the order, five hundred years had passed away, when accusations,

evidences, and judgments, were again submitted to the revision of

history;—the renown of the order and the memory of the knights are

again reëstablished in the opinion of impartial persons.

A new adversary of the Templars presented himself, and setting aside

the accusations which contemporary persecutors had imagined, invented

other crimes. In spite of the interval of time, he boasted of being

able to produce material proofs: “There is no need of words,” says M.

Hammer, “when stones serve as witnesses.”

What are these monuments with which the persons who prepared and

achieved the ruin of the Templars were unacquainted, or which they

neglected? How did they escape the industrious perquisitions of the

envy, hatred, and sagacity of the inquisitors? Why did not the divers

apostates, who, from ambition or fear, gave evidence against the order,

point out monuments which then would have been more numerous and more

striking, and whose existence might have justified their shameful

desertion? And when the churches and houses of the Templars were

occupied by successors who had so much interest in procuring pardon for

the rigour of the spoliation, how was it that none of these successors

discovered these material proofs, which, according to M. Hammer,

proclaim to the present day the apostasy of the Templars?

The work of this scholar is entitled, _Le Mystère du Baphomet révélé;

or, the Brothers of the Military Order of the Temple convicted, by

their own Memorials, of sharing the Apostasy, Idolatry, and Impiety of

the Gnostics, and even of the Ophianites_.

The following contains the exposition, the analysis, and the

recapitulation of M. Hammer.

“We read, in the procedure undertaken against the order of the Temple,

that the knights worshipped an idol of _Bafomet form—in figuram

Bafometi_.[181] The decomposition of this word furnishes _bafo_ and

_meti_. _Bafo_, in Greek, signifies _dyeing_, or _dipping_, and, by

extension, _baptism_; _meti_, signifies _spirit_. The _Bafomet_ of the

Templars was then _the baptism of the spirit—the Gnostic baptism_,

which was not performed by the waters of redemption, but which was

a spiritual lustration by fire. _Bafomet_ signifies, then, _the

illumination of the spirit_.

“As the Gnostics had furnished the Templars with Bafometic ideas and

images, the word _meti_ (_metis_) became venerated among the Templars:

“I shall, therefore,” adds M. Hammer, “furnish proofs of this decisive

circumstance.

“The Gnostics were accused of infamous vices. The _metis_ was

represented under symbolical forms, principally under that of serpents,

and of a truncated cross in the shape of _Tau—T_.

“The Gnostics,” continues M. Hammer, “did not always employ the word

_meti_ in their monuments; they likewise made use of the word _gnosis_,

which is synonymous, and is found among the Templars.”

Developing his system of accusation, M. Hammer constantly maintains

that it is proved by the proceedings instituted against the Templars,

that they adored Bafometic figures; he produces medals which bear these

pretended Bafometic figures, and particularly some medals upon which

may be read, _meti_, with a truncated cross,[182] and others which

represent a temple, with the legend, _Sanctissima Quinosis_, that is

to say, _Gnosis_. He indicates likewise Gnostic vases and chalices;

and attributing them to the Templars, advances, that the romance of

the _Saint Graal_, or holy cup, is a symbolic romance, which at the

same time conceals and proves the apostasy of the knights; and believes

that he recognises in churches which formerly belonged to the Templars,

or which he pretends to have belonged to them, Bafometic figures, and

Gnostic and ophitic symbols.

M. Hammer expends much erudition in describing the various and

numerous systems which preceded and produced the sect of the Gnostics;

at length he comes to the Bafometic figures; he produces twenty-four

of them, which appear to him to bear the characters of the _Bafomet_;

they are covered with astrological signs; many are encircled by a

serpent, and hold this cross by a handle, which was called _key of

the Nile_ by the Egyptians, and which has been considered the symbol

of fecundity; they bear inscriptions, some in Latin, some in Greek,

which denote nothing but proper names; and others in Arabic would be

unintelligible, if we had not the means of comparing them with those

upon the vases. The principal vase bears an Arabic inscription, which

refers to the worship of a divinity named _Mété_; it has the title of

_Teala_—all-powerful, and of _Nasch_—producer. M. Hammer pretends

that the _Mété_ was the same as the _Sophia_ and _Achamet_ of the

various sects of Gnostics.

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

Templars.

It was M. Nicolaï who, in a German work, entitled, _An Essay upon the

Secret of the Templars_, first employed this word _Bafomet_, and who

attached to it the idea of the image of the supreme God, in the state

of quietude attributed to him by the Manichean Gnostics; it was this

learned man who first supposed that the Templars had a secret doctrine

and initiations of several grades; and he pretends that the Saracens

had communicated this doctrine to them.

In order to destroy all these systems, it is sufficient to prove that

it is impossible to prove that the word _Bafometi_, which is reported

in the proceedings against the Templars, signified anything but

_Mahomet_.

M. le Baron Sylvestre de Sacy had already condemned this explanation of

M. Hammer; and if the latter persisted in not recognising in _Bafomet_

the name of _Mahomet_, it would be easy to prove to him that authors of

the middle ages often wrote Bafomet for Mahomet;—authorities are not

wanting.

If the word even of the Bafometic or Gnostic sect does not exist, if it

never has existed, the entire system is without a basis.

But even if it could be proved that a Bafometic sect had existed, if we

were in possession of certain details upon its opinions and mysteries,

how could M. Hammer prove that the Templars belonged to this sect?

M. Hammer has collected and caused to be engraved as many as a hundred

medals and other monuments which he attributes to the Templars, because

he fancies he finds upon them the _Mete_ and the _Tau_ of the Gnostics.

The medals he produces are not even proofs of the existence of a sect

of Gnostics; and even if this existence could be demonstrated, these

medals and these monuments being entirely foreign to the Templars, why

should they be applied to them?[183]

To give an idea of the manner in which M. Hammer tries to prove, by the

medals, that the Templars were Gnostics, I will cite only these upon

which this savant fancies he reads the word _Quinosis_ or _Gnosis_.

In the coin 80, we see, according to M. Hammer, the temple of Jerusalem

with four towers; the inscription is: + S. S. SIMOONJU[prostrate d]A;

but reading it the reverse way, and beginning, not by the final A, but

by the prostrate d, which M. Hammer has taken for a Q, whilst other

savants, who have quoted this medal, have thought it a D, he reads SSTA

QUINOMIS, although there is no T in the inscription; and considering

the M as a sigma reversed, M. Hammer has found QUINOSIS; then QUI into

G, and only making a single O of the two, he obtains GNOSIS; which,

according to his account, reveals and proves the secret of the Gnostic

Templars.

M. Hammer not only reads it backwards, but he begins by the penultimate

letter, and leaves the A, after which is a + which separates the

beginning of the inscription from its end. He adds a T, and supposes a

Greek letter mixed with the Latin inscription; and yet, after all these

changes, he cannot produce the word GNOSIS.

And what prevented him from seeing in this inscription what it really

is, SS. SIMON JUDA?

In the medal 99 we read in the same manner, S. SIMON VEL JUDA; in the

93rd, S. SIMON JUDA, &c. Nothing was more common in the middle ages

than coins which, on one side bear the name of a saint, and on the

other side the name of a city or prince.

Two of the coins upon which, instead of ST. SIMON and ST. JUDE, M.

Hammer records SAINT GNOSTIC, bear also the name of _Otto_, or _Otto_

MARCHIO. This circumstance is embarrassing for M. Hammer; he explains

it by saying that this Marquis Otho was a Gnostic, a protector of the

Templars, and initiated into their secret doctrines.

Seelander only reads St. Simon and St. Jude upon these coins; he

believes that this Otho might be Otho II., marquis of Brandenburg, who

lived about the year 1200. If the opinion of Seelander will not induce

M. Hammer to adopt this simple, natural, and evident explanation, he

may find in Otto Sperlingius the explanation of a similar coin, with

the inscription of St. Simon and St. Jude. The heads of the two saints

are close together, under the same crown. A. Mellen thought that this

coin was struck at Goslar, and Sperlengius adopts his opinion.

But even if it were allowed that these coins belonged to a sect of

Gnostics, I should continue to assert that M. Hammer does not at all

prove that the Templars made use of them. The reasoning of this savant

is reduced almost to this:—“These monuments are Gnostic, therefore

they relate to the Templars;” and to this:—“These monuments relate to

the Templars, therefore they are Gnostic.”

But let me be permitted to say once more, if the Templars had had

amongst them such Gnostic signs, how was it that these signs were not

made known and denounced when the question was to destroy the order?

How is it that they are never found anywhere but in Germany?

I should obtain the same result if I were to examine in this manner in

detail all that relates to the cups and chalices in which M. Hammer

believes he sees Gnostic emblems; not only is there nothing upon them

concerning the Templars, but M. Hammer has only collected them in

places and upon monuments quite foreign to the order of the Templars.

As to the Gnostic sculptures which M. Hammer persists in seeing in

some churches, is it not well known that we find in the churches of

the middle ages sculptures and monuments which it is very difficult

to explain, either on account of the moral and religious ideas which

the artists of the time expressed under very unsuitable images; or on

account of the pious allegories, the tradition of which is not come

down to us?

The relievos of the capitals of the church of St. Germaine des Prés

have embarrassed antiquaries, and if M. Hammer had found such in a

church of the Templars, he would not have failed to magnify by them his

act of accusation.

He cites seven churches in Germany, in which he pretends to recognise

Gnostic emblems: but he offers no proof that these churches belonged

to the Templars; and, even if the Order had built them, is it to

be conceived, that if there existed a secret doctrine among them,

the leaders would have exposed the symbols of it in public in their

churches? And how is it that they selected seven German churches to

receive these irreligious signs, whilst they did nothing of the same

kind in the three thousand churches they possessed in Christendom?

M. Hammer is not more fortunate when he seeks in romances, which speak

of the SAINT GRAAL, the emblematic history, or the symbol of the order

of the Temple.

These romances present nothing contrary to religion; the knights, who

are the personages, promise fidelity to God and the ladies; they arm

and fight for religion and beauty. Can we then be astounded that at the

period when these romances were composed, the search for the St. Graal,

or holy cup, was considered an exploit worthy of chivalry?

M. Hammer fancies he finds something very favourable to him in the

following passage:—“As the St. Graal came to Tramelet on the day

of Pentecost,”—he remarks that the festival of St. Graal was not

celebrated on Christmas-day, but at Pentecost; “if by this cup,” says

he, “had been meant, as some people suppose, the Lord’s cup, the

festival would have been celebrated either on Christmas-day or Holy

Thursday, and not on the day of Pentecost, which the Gnostics regarded

as very holy, as the day of the Holy Ghost, which was for the Gnostics

Sophia, and for the Templars METE.”

The reply to this is very easy:—1st. King Artus held his plenary

court on the great festivals of the year; it is not, then, surprising

that the St. Graal should arrive at Pentecost. 2nd. The author of the

romance could not choose the day of Christmas-day, which festival was

not appointed in the time of King Artus. 3rd. It is even probable that

the romance in question was composed before the institution of that

festival by Urban IV., in 1264.

M. Hammer has been sensible that it was strange to form, after a lapse

of five centuries, an accusation against the Templars quite different

from that which served as a pretext for the contemporary oppressors.

Therefore he advances that the pope, by the sentence which was

pronounced against the Templars, was willing to conceal the knowledge

of their true crimes; but he maintains, that when the archives of Rome

shall come to light, as everything does sooner or later, we shall there

find the proof of the crimes he now denounces.

How is it possible to be believed, that if the knights had been guilty

of the crimes M. Hammer attributes to them, the pope and kings would

have preferred the absurd system of accusation which they employed, to

a system such as that which M. Hammer puts forth?

But, besides, it is very certain that ALL the pieces which the archives

of Rome contained are now known: they are ALL marked with their numbers

in the notice of the unpublished pieces which have assisted in the

composition of _Les Monuments Historiques relatifs à la Condemnation

des Chavaliers du Temple, etc._ M. Hammer has nothing, therefore, to

hope from the archives of the Vatican.

This distinguished savant will some day acknowledge that he ought

not to have yielded to the desire of putting forth a new system of

denunciation against the order and the knights of the Temple. Their

terrible and celebrated catastrophe imposes the obligation of being

very circumspect and very severe in the choice of the means by which we

may allow ourselves to endeavour to deprive them of the just pity which

posterity has not refused to their fate.

INDEX.

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.

Battle, wager of, during the middle ages, iii. 312.

Bavaria, diet convoked in, i. 338.

Baysy, the birth-place of Godfrey de Bouillon, i. 76 n.

Beard, pledging and redeeming of the, i. 285 and n.

“Bearers of the cross,” title assumed by the first Crusaders,

i. 52 and n.

Bedouin Arabs, their bravery, ii. 391.

Bela IV., king of Hungary, his fear of the Tartars, iii. 6 n.

Belgrade besieged by the Turks, iii. 166.

The Turks defeated, iii. 167.

Taken by the Turks, iii. 213.

“Belial, children of”. i. 65.

Belinas, in Syria, pillaged by the Crusaders, ii. 475.

Bellerophon, statue of, at Constantinople, ii. 138 and n.

Berengaria of Navarre, i. 475.

Married to Richard I. of England, i. 476.

Berenger II., count of Barcelona, penitential pilgrimage of, i. 27.

Bernard, count of Carinthia, i. 338.

Bernard. See _St. Bernard_.

Bernicles, punishment of the, ii. 434.

Bertrand, son of Raymond de St. Gilles, i. 287.

Berytus, plain of, i. 198.

Wealth and importance of the city of, ii. 18.

Besieged by the Crusaders, _ib._

Captured and destroyed by the Saracens, iii. 89.

Bethlehem, i. 21.

The Crusaders take possession of, i. 201.

Bethonopolis, city of, i. 492.

Bibars Bendocdar, the Mameluke chief, ii. 404 and n.

Slays Almoadam, the sultan, ii. 440.

Assassinates Koutouz, iii. 7.

Is proclaimed sultan of Egypt, iii. 8.

Declares war against the Christians of Palestine, _ib._

His continued victories over them, iii. 11 et seq., iii. 63.

His death and character, iii. 64, iii. 65.

Biblies taken by the Crusaders, i. 288.

Bilbeis, city of, i. 388.

Besieged and captured by the king of Jerusalem, i. 394.

Bissarion, Cardinal, speech of, iii. 172.

Bithynia, hostilities in, between the Crusaders and the Turks,

i. 99 et seq.

Blanche, queen-regent of France, ii. 350.

Accompanies her son, Louis IX., on the outset of his crusade,

ii. 368.

Death of, and grief of Louis IX., ii. 475.

Blois, count of, obtains possession of Bithynia, ii. 162.

Is slain, ii. 167.

Anecdote of his devoted heroism, iii. 298.

Blondel, the minstrel, emancipates Richard I. from imprisonment,

iii. 406 (App.).

Bohemond, prince of Tarentum, one of the leaders of the Crusaders,

i. 84.

His character, i. 85, i. 86.

Embarks for Greece, i. 86.

Reception of, by Alexius of Constantinople, i. 93.

Defeats the Turks in Phrygia, i. 108-111.

His barbarous treatment of the Turkish spies, i. 137.

His ambitious views, i. 147.

His defence of Antioch, i. 163.

Made prince of the city and territory, i. 186.

Visits Jerusalem, i. 269.

Surprised and captured in an expedition against the infidels,

i. 275.

Regains his liberty, and at Antioch resists the aggressions of

Alexius, i. 282.

Defeated at Charan, and escapes to Italy, i. 282, i. 283.

Arouses Europe against the infidels, i. 283, i. 284.

Embarks with a large army against the Emperor Alexius, i. 284.

Returns to Tarentum, where he dies, _ib._

Letter from him and others detailing their victory over the

infidels, iii. 360 (App.).

Bohemond, prince of Antioch and Tripoli, a descendant of the prince of

Tarentum, treacherously taken prisoner by the Armenians, ii. 8.

His death, ii. 190.

——, count of Tripoli, enters into a treaty with Bibars, iii. 17.

Bibars’s insulting letter to, on the capture of Antioch, _ib._

His city of Tripoli captured, iii. 69.

Boniface, marquis of Montferrat, elected commander of the fifth

crusade, ii. 55.

Captures Constantinople, ii. 131.

Elected sovereign of Thessalonica, ii. 150.

Shares the spoils of the Greek empire, ii. 152.

Quarrels with Baldwin, ii. 159-161.

Invades Greece, ii. 162, ii. 163.

Is slain, ii. 173.

Bosnia conquered by Mahomet II., iii. 174.

Bosra, city of, i. 317.

Expedition against, i. 318.

Disastrous retreat from, i. 319.

Bourbons, Archambault de, death of, ii. 371.

Bordeaux, itinerary from, to Jerusalem, iii. 351 et seq.

Notices of, _ib._ and n.

Bouvines, battle of, ii. 210.

Brienne, John of, city of Damietta assigned to, ii. 251.

His speech against the invasion of Egypt, ii. 254.

Revisits Europe, ii. 264.

Called to the throne of Constantinople, ii. 288.

Death of, ii. 289.

Brittany, duke of, his bravery, ii. 408.

“Brothers of Mercy,” origin of the, iii. 303.

Bulgarians, notices of the, i. 62.

Oppose the progress of the Crusaders, i. 63 et seq.

Their victories over the Latins, ii. 166-171.

Burbotte, a fish of the Nile, ii. 418 n.

Burgundy, duke of, his death, i. 501.

Byzantium. See _Constantinople_.

C.

Cæsarea besieged and captured by Baldwin, king of Jerusalem, i. 277,

i. 278 and n.

Capitulation of, i. 316.

Captured by the Egyptians, iii. 11.

Cairo, caliph of, treats the Christians as allies, i. 16.

Maintains relations with the Crusaders, i. 194.

His object, _ib._

His propositions rejected, i. 195, i. 196.

Sultan of, carries on war against the sultan of Damascus,

ii. 468, ii. 473.

Treaty of peace between, ii. 474.

See _Egypt_.

Caliphs, degeneracy of the, i. 12, i. 13.

Calixtus III., endeavours to stir up a crusade against the Turks,

iii. 165, iii. 169.

Camlets, manufacture of, during the middle ages, iii. 328.

Candia capitulates to the Turks, iii. 235.

Cannon of enormous size used against Constantinople, iii. 148.

Cantacuzenes, emperor of Constantinople, iii. 123.

Capistran, John, preaches a crusade against the Turks, iii. 163.

Death of, iii. 167.

Carac, heroic defence of, i. 453.

Caraffa, Cardinal, commands a crusading fleet, iii. 183.

Cardinals first clothed in scarlet at the council of Lyons, ii. 343.

Carismia captured by Gengiskhan, ii. 320.

The warriors of, commit extensive ravages in Syria, ii. 325.

Defeat the Christian and Mussulman united forces, ii. 326.

Join the sultan of Egypt, and capture Jerusalem, _ib._

Capture Damascus, ii. 332;

but rebelling against the sultan of Cairo, are defeated and

dispersed, _ib._

Carlowitz, treaty of, iii. 236.

Cassia brought from Asia, iii. 336.

Cassin, Mount, i. 21.

Cassius, his dispute with Dolabella, i. 117 n.

Cazan, the Mogul prince, conquests of, iii. 95.

Sends ambassadors to the pope, _ib._

Death of, iii. 97.

Celestine III., Pope, instigates Christendom to undertake the fourth

crusade, ii. 11.

—— IV., Pope, short reign of, ii. 296.

Cemetery for the pilgrims at Jerusalem, i. 10, i. 11.

Cenis, Mount, hospital of, i. 22.

Centius, prefect of Rome, pilgrimage of, i. 25.

Chages, a Mussulman sect, their fanatical devotion, iii. 79.

Chalcis captured by the Crusaders, i. 127.

Chalil elected sultan of Cairo, iii. 76.

Besieges Ptolemaïs, iii. 77.

Captures it, iii. 85;

and takes several other Christian cities, iii. 89.

Charan, Christians defeated at, i. 283.

Charlemagne, magnificent court of, i. 8.

His amicable relations with Aroun al Raschid, i. 9.

Promulgates religion by the sword, iii. 15 n.

Attempts to destroy the feudal system, iii. 275.

Portraiture of, iii. 358 (App.).

Charles IV., emperor of Germany, projects a fresh crusade, iii. 115.

—— V., his violence to the pope, iii. 216.

Policy of, iii. 219.

—— VIII., of Naples, engages in a crusade against the Turks,

iii. 193.

Receives the crown of Naples, iii. 195.

His army disbanded, iii. 196.

——, count of Anjou, crowned by the pope as king of Sicily, iii. 21.

Defeats his rival Conraddin, iii. 31.

Lands at Tunis, iii. 46;

and takes the command of the Crusaders, iii. 48-52.

Charles-le-Bel, of France, iii. 102.

His death, iii. 103 and n.

Charters, use of, adopted, iii. 320.

Charts, geographical, imperfect state of, during the middle ages,

iii. 335.

Châtelain de Coucy, chivalry of, i. 500 and n.

Chaver, vizier of Egypt, i. 387.

Resists the military preparations against Egypt, i. 390 et seq.

Chegger-Eddour, beauty and genius of, ii. 397.

Incites the Mamelukes to revolt, ii. 439.

Elected sultana of Egypt, ii. 445.

Marries Ezz-Eddin, and yields her regal authority, ii. 459.

Assassinates her husband, iii. 3.

Is sacrificed by her slaves, iii. 4.

Children, Jourdain’s letter on the crusade of, in 1212,

iii. 441 (App.).

China conquered by Gengiskhan, ii. 319.

Chio captured by the Turks, iii. 232.

Chirkou, the emir, i. 387.

Invades Egypt, i. 389 et seq.

Death of, i. 397.

Chirkoùh, family of, ii. 3.

Chivalry, spirit of, in favour of the crusades, i. 55.

Origin and history of, iii. 294 et seq.

“Christ lives!” &c., the war-cry of the Christian soldiers,

i. 281 and n.

Christendom, distracted state of, iii. 201, iii. 202, iii. 217.

Fears of, allayed by the victory of Lepanto over the Turks,

iii. 226.

Improving position of, iii. 230, iii. 245.

Christian army at Jerusalem, pious fervour of the, i. 226, i. 227.

Enthusiasm and valour of, ii. 36, ii. 37.

—— religion, its tendency to soften the manners of the Eastern

conquerors, i. 38.

Influence of, on the Crusaders, i. 56.

Christianity, power of the popes augmented by the progress of, i. 39.

On the sanguinary wars in support of, ii. 310; iii. 15 n.

Overthrown at Constantinople by the Turks, iii. 158.

Extended to China, iii. 304.

Its superiority over Mohammedanism, iii. 346, iii. 347.

Christians of the East respected by the northern barbarians, i. 3.

Persecuted by the Mussulmans, i. 7, i. 8, i. 16, i. 17, i. 19,

i. 32, i. 33.

Defeat the Mussulmans, i. 15.

Favoured by the caliphs of Cairo, i. 16.

Driven from Jerusalem, i. 19.

Their rejoicings at the conquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders,

i. 236.

Quit Jerusalem on its capture by Saladin, i. 431.

Their great sufferings, i. 433, ii. 7.

War declared against, by the sultan of Egypt, and Palestine ravaged,

ii. 11.

—— of the West, their early attention directed to the East, i. 3.

Excited to resistance by Archbishop Gerbert, i. 17.

Their various pilgrimages, i. 20 et seq.

Welcomed everywhere, i. 22.

See _Crusades_ and _Crusaders_.

Chronicle of Tours, extract from, iii. 359.

Chronicles, ancient, what is fabulous and what not, i. xxiii.

Of the middle ages, iii. 339-342.

“Chronicon Anglicanum,” by Ralph of Coggershall, iii. 395.

Churches, building of, during the period of the crusades, iii. 331.

Chütes, sect of the, iii. 413.

Cities abandoned by the infidels, i. 201.

Enfranchisement of, in Europe during the crusades, iii. 284-287.

Civilization weakens the spirit of fanaticism, i. xxi.

Increasing spread of, in Europe, iii. 229.

Progress of, during and after the crusades, iii. 251 et seq.

Clement IV. supports the second crusade undertaken by Louis IX.,

iii. 26, iii. 27.

Death of, iii. 36.

—— V., Pope, proclaims a crusade at the council of Vienna, iii. 97.

—— VII., his abortive attempts to arouse Christendom against the

Turks, iii. 215, iii. 218.

Imprisoned by Charles V., iii. 216.

Clergy assume arms in the crusades, i. 55.

Oppose the levying of contributions to the second crusade of Louis

IX., iii. 27.

Ascendancy and wealth of, during the age of the crusades, iii. 301,

iii. 302 et seq.

Their influence in the administration of justice during the middle

ages, iii. 315, iii. 316 and n.

Clermont, council at, held by Urban II., i. 44 et seq.

Cœur, Jacques, biographical notices of, iii. 184 and n.

Colonna, Mark Antony, his triumphal entry into Rome after the battle

of Lepanto, iii. 227.

Comans defeat the Latins, ii. 166.

The barbarous hordes of, ii. 333.

Comet, alarm caused by the sight of one, iii. 166.

Commerce of the East, i. 11.

State of, and progress during the period of the crusades, iii. 326

et seq.

Comnena, Anna, the historian, and daughter of Alexius Comnenus of

Constantinople, i. 41 n., i. 73, i. 75, i. 85, i. 88, i. 89, i. 147

et passim.

Comnenus, John, emperor of Constantinople, attacks Antioch, i. 312.

——, Manuel, his hypocritical policy, i. 347 et seq.

——, Michael-Angelus, gains the kingdom of Epirus, ii. 156.

Conon de Bethune, his speech in reply to the Emperor Alexius, ii. 84.

Conrad III., emperor of Germany, i. 337.

Determines on the second crusade, i. 338.

Leaves Germany at the head of the Crusaders, i. 346.

Arrives at Constantinople, i. 348.

Defeated by the Turks, i. 351, i. 352.

Returns to Constantinople, i. 353.

Arrives at Jerusalem, i. 363.

His heroism before Damascus, i. 366.

——, son of the marquis of Montferrat, and marquis of Tyre, engages

in the holy war, i. 451.

Defends Tyre, and repulses Saladin, i. 452.

Fits out a fleet for the Holy Land, i. 457.

His pretensions to the throne of Jerusalem, i. 470.

Ill-treated by Richard I. of England, i. 491.

Insidiously enters into an alliance with Saladin, i. 493.

Assassination of, i. 494.

——, Bishop, leader of the German crusades, ii. 21, ii. 22.

Assassinated, ii. 34.

Conraddin disputes the crown of Sicily, iii. 22.

Is defeated and executed, iii. 31.

——, sultan of Damascus, death of, ii. 275.

Constantine the Great, the promoter of Christian zeal, i. 1.

——, the Armenian prince, i. 122.

CONSTANTINOPLE besieged by the Saracens, i. 5, i. 9.

Popular traditions of its future liberation by the Latins, i. 9.

Eleven of its emperors put to death, i. 35.

The emperor, Alexius Comnenus, seeks the assistance of the Latins,

i. 44 and n.

The Crusaders arrive at, i. 67.

Excesses committed, i. 73.

Reception of the French leaders, i. 92-95.

Seductions of, i. 95, i. 96.

State of, at the time of the second crusade, i. 347.

Isaac Angelus the emperor of, i. 445.

Contentions between the Greeks and the Latins, i. 446, ii. 114-125.

The emperor dethroned, ii. 62.

Description of, ii. 81.

Besieged by the Crusaders, ii. 82.

Captured, ii. 93.

Conflagration in, ii. 105, 106.

Mourzouffle dethroned, ii. 129.

Lascaris chosen emperor, ii. 130.

Captured and plundered by the Latins, ii. 131-133.

Destruction of its works of art, ii. 137-140.

Relics sought for, ii. 141-143.

Amount of plunder obtained, ii. 144, ii. 145.

Baldwin, count of Flanders, elected emperor, ii. 148.

Decline of the Latin empire in, ii. 288.

John of Brienne called to the throne of, _ib._

Wrested from the Latins by the Greek troops of Michael Palæologus,

iii. 10.

Insurrectionary spirit in, iii. 111, iii. 113, iii. 116, iii. 117.

Tottering state of, when menaced by the Turks, iii. 123 et seq.

Besieged by Mahomet II., iii. 145, iii. 148 et seq.

Sanguinary conflicts, iii. 154, iii. 155.

Capture of, iii. 156.

Destruction of the empire of, iii. 158.

The stores of ancient learning and philosophy brought from,

iii. 338.

Constantinople, treaty between the Crusaders for dividing the city and

empire of, iii. 431 (App.).

Statues of, destroyed by the Crusaders, as related by Nicetas

Choniates, iii. 435 (App.).

Corfu surrenders to the Crusaders, ii. 77.

Fertility of, ii. 78.

Corsairs, a band of, join the Crusaders, i. 118.

—— Flemish, released from imprisonment, i. 188.

Cosroës, king of Persia, i. 3.

Coucy, Sieur de, death of, iii. 129.

Courçon, Cardinal de, preaches the sixth crusade, ii. 206, ii. 207.

Accusations against, ii. 208.

Death of, ii. 240.

Courtenay, Peter of, assassinated, ii. 288.

——, Robert of, his losses and death, ii. 288.

——, family of. See _Josselin_.

Courts of Justice established in Europe during the middle ages,

iii. 317 et seq.

Coxon and Marash, or “mountain of the devil,” i. 126.

Creton, Reimbault, origin of the noble family of, i. 222 n.

Cross, the badge of the Crusaders, i. 52.

—— of Christ found at Jerusalem, i. 230.

CRUSADES, AND CRUSADERS. Introduction to the history of the, i. xix.

No spectacle more imposing in the history of the middle age, _ib._

Disasters of the, i. xx, i. xxi.

“A right regal history”, i. xxii.

On the justice of the, i. xxiii.

Causes of, _ib._

Their effects, i. xxiv.

Their early history, from A.D. 300 to 1095, i. 1 et seq.

—— THE FIRST CRUSADE, A.D. 1095.—The numerous pilgrimages of the

eleventh century the forerunner of the, i. 24-30.

Instigated by Peter the Hermit, i. 42 et seq.

Determined on, and the name first assumed, at the council of

Clermont, i. 52.

Enthusiasm inspired thereby, i. 53 et seq.

Miracles and supernatural wonders alleged to be manifested, i. 57,

i. 81.

Large armies collected, i. 61.

Their departure, _ib._

Opposed by the Hungarians and Bulgarians, i. 63 et seq., i. 71,

i. 72.

Progress of, i. 65.

The Crusaders assail Nissa, _ib._

Their disastrous defeat, i. 66.

Enter Thrace, and reach Constantinople, i. 67.

Elect Gotschalk, a priest, as their general, i. 68.

Their progress, i. 69 et seq.

Rapacity and cruelties perpetrated by the, i. 70 et seq.

Signal defeats and general slaughter of, i. 72 et seq.

Fresh armies sent from various parts of Europe, and the names of

their most distinguished leaders, i. 76-88.

Wage war against the Greeks, i. 90, i. 91.

Wretched situation of the remains of Peter’s army in Bithynia,

i. 96.

Opposed by the Seljoucide Turks in Bithynia, i. 97.

Their various contests, i. 99 et seq.

Their arms and accoutrements, i. 99.

They besiege and capture Nice, i. 100-105.

They enter Phrygia, i. 106;

and defeat the Turks, i. 107-111.

Their sufferings in “burning Phrygia”, i. 113, i. 114.

They arrive at Antiochetta, i. 114.

Dissensions among the leaders, i. 116-118, i. 191.

They reach Mesopotamia, i. 121;

and are everywhere triumphant, i. 126.

Their sufferings in Mount Taurus, _ib._

They enter Syria, and capture Antioch, i. 127.

Their sufferings, i. 133 et seq., i. 159-161.

Their vices and debaucheries, i. 136.

Their valorous deeds, i. 140-142.

The sultan of Persia sends an immense army against them, i. 158.

They are besieged, and exposed to famine and desertion, i. 159-164.

They march out of Antioch, and defeat the invading Saracens with

great slaughter, i. 170-174.

Disputes among the leaders, i. 179 et seq.

Their conquests in Syria, i. 183-186.

Their departure for the Holy Land, i. 187, i. 188.

They besiege Archas, Tortosa &c., i. 189 et seq.

Their reliance on prodigies and visions, i. 191, i. 192.

Their march through Palestine, i. 196 et seq.

The immense losses sustained, i. 197.

Their enthusiasm on the first view of Jerusalem, i. 202.

Besiege the city, i. 205 et seq.;

and take it by storm, i. 221-225.

Godfrey de Bouillon elected king, i. 234.

Great victory over the Egyptian forces on the plain of Ascalon,

i. 240-242.

Many of the leaders return to Europe, i. 246, i. 247.

Fresh bodies of Crusaders leave Europe for the East, i. 249, i. 250.

Their leaders, i. 249, i. 251.

Take the city of Ancyra, _ib._

Defeated with great slaughter by the Turks, i. 252, i. 253.

Reflections on their heroism and exploits, i. 257 et seq.

Kingdom founded by their victories, i. 265 et seq.

Death of their great leader, Godfrey de Bouillon, king of Jerusalem,

i. 274.

His brother Baldwin elected as his successor, on whose family the

sovereignty devolves, i. 275 et seq.

Hostilities carried on against the infidels of Palestine and Egypt,

with alternate success and defeat, i. 277 et seq.

Their conquests and high state of prosperity under Baldwin du Bourg,

i. 306.

Their military orders of knighthood, i. 307-309.

Their calamitous defeat at Edessa by the armies of Zengui and

Noureddin, i. 321-327.

Their consternation and despair, i. 328.

—— THE SECOND CRUSADE, A.D. 1142-1148.—The Christian colonies of

the East being threatened by the Mussulmans, call upon the

princes of Europe to assist them, i. 329.

All Christendom aroused by St. Bernard to the impending dangers of

the Holy Land, i. 139 et seq.

Louis VII., king of France, and Pope Eugenius III., determine on a

second crusade, i. 331.

The multitudes assembled for the occasion, i. 342, i. 343.

The cities of Metz and Ratisbon the general rendezvous, i. 344.

Measures for raising money to defray the expenses, i. 345.

The crusaders depart from Europe, headed by Louis VII. and the

Emperor Conrad, i. 346.

Arrive at Constantinople, i. 348, i. 349.

Treacherous policy of the Greeks, i. 348 et seq.

The German Crusaders defeated near Nice, i. 351, i. 382.

The French Crusaders march through Phrygia, and are defeated by the

Turks, i. 355, i. 356.

Their distress and sufferings, i. 357, i. 359 et seq.

Besiege Damascus, and are defeated, i. 365 et seq.

Insufficient means of defence, i. 372.

General characteristics of, i. 373.

Other Crusaders pursue their operations in Spain and Portugal,

i. 374, i. 375.

Reproaches against St. Bernard for the misfortunes of the Crusaders

of the East, i. 376, i. 377.

—— THE THIRD CRUSADE, A.D. 1148-1188.—Causes of, i. 382 et seq.

The Christian army marches against Egypt, and commences vigorous

hostilities, i. 389 et seq.

The Sicilian Crusaders lay siege to Alexandria, i. 400.

The calamitous war of the Crusaders with Saladin, i. 402, i. 417 et

seq.

Discord amongst them, i. 409 et seq.

They send deputies to the kings of France and England to solicit

aid, i. 411.

They are defeated by Saladin with immense slaughter, and the king of

Jerusalem made prisoner, i. 418-423.

The holy city delivered up to Saladin, after being eighty years in

possession of the Christians, i. 429.

William, archbishop of Tyre, incites the courts of France and

England to renew the holy war, i. 436 et seq.

Richard I. of England, Philip of France, Frederick Barbarossa, and

other illustrious potentates and knights, engage in the holy

war, i. 441 et seq.

The victorious career and death of Barbarossa, i. 448, i. 449.

The Crusaders invade Ptolemaïs under Guy de Lusignan, and are

opposed by Saladin in numerous conflicts, i. 454 et seq.

Arrival of Richard I. of England, Philip of France, and other

illustrious personages, i. 476.

Discord in the camp, and quarrels between the two potentates,

i. 476, i. 477.

Anecdotes of heroic bravery before the walls of Ptolemaïs,

i. 478-480.

Ptolemaïs taken by the Christians, and numbers slain, i. 481.

Manners and characteristics of, i. 483, i. 484.

Richard I. defeats Saladin at the battle of Arsur, i. 487, i. 488;

and takes possession of Jaffa, i. 489.

The Crusaders march upon Jerusalem, i. 492.

Civil dissensions among, i. 493, i. 498.

They ratify a treaty of peace with Saladin, i. 500, i. 501.

Immense losses sustained, i. 501.

General reflections, i. 502.

Advantages to Europe and civilization, i. 506 et seq.

—— THE FOURTH CRUSADE, A.D. 1195-1198.—Retrospective view, ii. 1 et

seq.

Civil commotions of Palestine among the successors of Saladin at the

time of, ii. 4-7.

Instigated by the exhortations of Pope Celestine III. and Henry IV.

of Germany, ii. 11 et seq.

The illustrious men who engage in it, ii. 14, ii. 15.

The archbishop of Mayence and Valeran de Valeran take the command,

and arrive in Palestine, ii. 15.

Engage in hostilities with the Mussulmans, ii. 16 et seq.

Signal defeat of the Saracens before Berytus, and its important

consequences, ii. 19.

Progress of the German Crusaders under Henry IV., ii. 20, ii. 21.

Dissensions among the leaders, ii. 28-30.

Their departure from Palestine, ii. 31.

A truce concluded between the duke de Montfort and the Saracens,

ii. 32.

Causes of the failure of this crusade, and its mischievous

consequences, ii. 33-35.

—— THE FIFTH CRUSADE, A.D. 1198-1204.—General remarks, ii. 36.

Causes which led to it, ii. 38, ii. 39.

Instigated by Pope Innocent III., _ib._

Preaching of Foulkes in its favour, ii. 42, ii. 43.

The illustrious leaders engaged in it, ii. 45-47, ii. 58.

Aided by Venice, ii. 50, ii. 53 n.

Boniface, marquis of Montferrat, elected the commander, ii. 55.

Quarrels between the Venetians and the French, ii. 64 et seq.

Besiege and capture Constantinople, ii. 82-93.

Defeated by the Saracens, ii. 112.

Contests between the Greeks and the Crusaders at Constantinople,

ii. 114 et seq.

The Crusaders capture and plunder the city, ii. 131 et seq.

Their veneration for relics and images, ii. 141.

Baldwin, count of Flanders, elected emperor of Constantinople,

ii. 148.

The conquered lands of the Greek empire distributed among the

leaders, ii. 149, ii. 150.

The Greeks, Bulgarians, &c. take arms against and almost annihilate

them, ii. 165-173.

Reflections on the consequences of the fifth crusade, ii. 179 et

seq.