Godfrey, Baldwin I., Baldwin II.,
advocatus 1099-1100. brother of Godfrey, nephew of Godfrey
king 1100-1118. and Baldwin I.,
and king 1118-1131.
|
+--------------------+--+
| |
Fulk of Anjou, = Melisinda Alice = Bohemund II.
king 1131-1143. | of Antioch
| (q.v.)
|
+------------+---------------------------------------+
| |
Baldwin III., Amalric I.,
king 1143-1162. king 1162-1174.
|
+-----------+----------------------------------------------+
| | |
Baldwin IV., Sibylla = (1) William of (2) Guy de Lusignan, |
king 1174-1183. Montferrat; king 1186-1192. |
| |
Baldwin V., |
king 1183-1186. |
|
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|
Isabella = (1) Humfred (2) Conrad of (3) Henry of (4) Amalric II.,
of Turon. Montferrat, Champagne, brother of Guy
acknowledged king 1192-1197. de Lusignan,
king in 1192. | king 1197-1205
| | (also king of
+----------------+ | Cyprus).
| | |
Mary, = John of Brienne, | |
queen under | king 1210-1225. | |
a regency | | |
from 1205- | | |
1210. | | |
+-----------------+ | |
| | |
Isabella = Frederick II., | |
| emperor of the West | |
| and king of Jerusalem | |
| 1225-1250. | |
| | |
Conrad IV., king | |
of Germany and | |
of Jerusalem 1250-1255. | |
| | |
Conradin, king | |
1254-1268. | |
| |
+---------------------------------------------+ |
| +---------------------------------+
| |
Alice = Hugh I. of Cyprus, Melisinda = Bohemund IV.
| son of Amalric II. |
| by his first wife. Mary of Antioch,
| who died 1277,
| leaving her claims
| to Charles of Anjou
| (king of Sicily).
|
+--+------------------------------------------+
| |
Henry I. of Cyprus = Plaisance of Antioch. Isabella = John de Lusignan.
| |
Hugh II. of Cyprus. |
Hugh (III. of Cyprus and)
I. of Jerusalem,
1269-1284.
|
+--------------------------+---+
| |
John I., Henry (III. of Cyprus and)
king of Cyprus, II. of Jerusalem,
1284-1285. king from 1285 to the
fall of the kingdom in
1291.
When all is said, the Crusades remain a wonderful and perpetually
astonishing act in the great drama of human life. They touched the
summits of daring and devotion, if they also sank into the deep abysms
of shame. Motives of self-interest may have lurked in them--otherworldly
motives of buying salvation for a little price, or worldly motives of
achieving riches and acquiring lands. Yet it would be treason to the
majesty of man's incessant struggle towards an ideal good, if one were
to deny that in and through the Crusades men strove for righteousness'
sake to extend the kingdom of God upon earth. Therefore the tears and
the blood that were shed were not unavailing; the heroism and the
chivalry were not wasted. Humanity is the richer for the memory of those
millions of men, who followed the pillar of cloud and fire in the sure
and certain hope of an eternal reward. The ages were not dark in which
Christianity could gather itself together in a common cause, and carry
the flag of its faith to the grave of its Redeemer; nor can we but give
thanks for their memory, even if for us religion is of the spirit, and
Jerusalem in the heart of every man who believes in Christ.
LITERATURE.--In dealing with the literature of the Crusades, it is
perhaps better, though ideally less scientific, to begin with
chronicles and narratives rather than with documents. One of the
results of the Crusades, as has just been suggested above, was a great
increase in the writing of history. Crusaders themselves kept diaries
or _itineraria_; while home-keeping ecclesiastics in the West--monks
like Robert of Reims, abbots like Guibert of Nogent, archbishops like
Balderich of Dol--found a fertile subject for their pens in the
history of the Crusades. The history of a series of actions like the
Crusades must primarily be based on these accounts, and more
particularly on the former: narratives must precede documents where
one is dealing, not with the continuous life of an organized kingdom,
but with a number of enterprises--especially when those enterprises
have been, as in this case, excellently narrated by contemporary
writers.
I. _Chronicles and Narratives of the Crusades_--(1) Collections. The
authorities for the Crusades have been collected in Bongars, _Gesta
Dei per Francos_ (Hanover, 1611) (incomplete); Michaud, _Bibliotheque
des croisades_ (Paris, 1829) (containing translations of select
passages in the authorities); the _Recueil des historiens des
croisades_, published by the Academie des Inscriptions (Paris, 1841
onwards) (the best general collection, containing many of the Latin,
Greek, Arabic and Armenian authorities, and also the text of the
assizes; but sometimes poorly edited and still incomplete); and the
publications of the Societe de l'Orient Latin (founded in 1875),
especially the _Archives_, of which two volumes were published in 1881
and 1884, and the volumes of the _Revue_, published yearly from 1893
to 1902, and containing not only new texts, but articles and reviews
of books which are of great service. (2) Particular authorities. The
Crusades--a movement which engaged all Europe and brought the East
into contact with the West--must necessarily be studied not only in
the Latin authorities of Europe and of Palestine, but also in
Byzantine, Armenian and Arabic writers. There are thus some four or
five different points of view to be considered.
The _First Crusade_, far more than any other, became the theme of a
multitude of writings, whose different degrees of value it is
all-important to distinguish. Until about 1840 the authority followed
for its history was naturally the great work of William of Tyre. For
the First Crusade William had followed Albert of Aix; and he had
consequently depicted Peter the Hermit as the prime mover in the
Crusade. But about 1840 Ranke suggested, and von Sybel in his
_Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges_ proved, that Albert of Aix was
_not_ a good authority, and that consequently William of Tyre must be
set aside for the history of the First Crusade, and other and more
contemporary authorities used. In writing his account of the First
Crusade, von Sybel accordingly based himself on the three contemporary
Western authorities--the _Gesta Francorum_, Raymond of Agiles, and
Fulcher. His view of the value of Albert of Aix, and his account of
the First Crusade, have been generally followed (Kugler alone having
attempted, to some extent, to rehabilitate Albert of Aix); and thus
von Sybel's work may be said to mark a revolution in the history of
the First Crusade, when its legendary features were stripped away, and
its real progress was first properly discovered.
Taking the Western authorities for the First Crusade separately, one
may divide them, in the light of von Sybel's work, into four
kinds--the accounts of eye-witnesses; later compilations based on
these accounts; semi-legendary and legendary narratives; and lastly,
in a class by itself, the "History" of William of Tyre, who is rather
a scientific historian than a chronicler.
(a) The three chief eye-witnesses are the anonymous author of the
_Gesta Francorum_, Raymund of Agiles, and Fulcher. The anonymous
author of the _Gesta_ (see Hagenmeyer's edition, Heidelberg, 1890) was
a Norman of South Italy, who followed Bohemund, and accordingly
depicts the progress of the First Crusade from a Norman point of view.
He was a layman, marching and fighting in the ranks; and thus he is
additionally valuable as representing the opinion of the ordinary
crusader. Finally he was an eye-witness throughout, and absolutely
contemporary, in the sense that he wrote his account of each great
event practically at the time of the event. He is the primary
authority for the First Crusade. Raymund of Agiles, a Provencal clerk
and a follower of Raymund of Toulouse, writes his _Historia Francorum
qui ceperunt Jerusalem_ from the Provencal point of view. He gives an
ecclesiastic's account of the First Crusade, and is specially full on
the spiritualistic phenomena which accompanied and followed the
finding of the Holy Lance. His book might almost be called the
"Visions of Peter Bartholomew and others," and it is written in the
plain matter-of-fact manner of Defoe's narratives. He too was an
eye-witness throughout, and thoroughly honest; and his account ranks
second to the _Gesta_. Fulcher of Chartres originally followed Robert
of Normandy, but in October 1097 he joined Baldwin of Lorraine in his
expedition to Edessa, and afterwards followed his fortunes. His
_Historia Hierosolymitana_, which extends to 1127, and embraces not
only the history of the First Crusade, but also that of the foundation
of the kingdom of Jerusalem, is written on the whole from a
Lotharingian point of view, and is thus a natural complement to the
accounts of the Anonymus and Raymund. His account of the First Crusade
itself is poor (he was absent at Edessa during its course), but
otherwise he is an excellent authority. A kindly old pedant, Fulcher
interlards his history with much discourse on geography, zoology and
sacred history. Besides these three chief eye-witnesses we may also
mention the _Annales Genuenses_ by the Genoese consul Caffarus,[64]
and the _Annales Pisani_ of Bernardus Marago, useful as giving the
mercantile and Italian side of the Crusade; the _Hierosolymita_ of
Ekkehard, the German abbot of Aura, who first came to Jerusalem about
1101 (partly based on the _Gesta_, but also of independent value: see
Hagenmeyer's edition, Tubingen, 1877); and Raoul of Caen's _Gesta
Tancredi_, composed on the basis of information supplied by Tancred
himself. The last two works, if not actually the works of
eye-witnesses, are at any rate first-hand, and belong to the category
of primary writers rather than to that of later compilations. Finally,
to contemporary writers we may add contemporary letters, especially
those written by Stephen of Blois and Anselm of Ribemont, and the
three letters sent to the West by the crusading princes during the
First Crusade (see Hagenmeyer, _Epistulae et Chartae_, &c., Innsbruck,
1901).[65]
(b) The later compilations are chiefly based on the _Gesta_, whose
uncouth style many writers set themselves to mend. In the first place,
there is the _Historia de Hierosolymitano itinere_ of Tudebod, which
according to Besly, writing in 1641, is the original from which the
_Gesta_ was a mere plagiarism--an absolute inversion of the truth, as
von Sybel first proved two centuries later. Secondly, besides the
plagiarist Tudebod, there are the artistic _redacteurs_ of the
_Gesta_, who confess their indebtedness, but plead the bad style of
their original--Guibert of Nogent, Balderich of Dol, Robert of Reims
(all c. 1120-1130), and Fulco, the author of a Virgilian poem on the
Crusades, continued by Gilo (_ob. c._ 1142). Of these, the monk Robert
was more popular in the middle ages than either the pompous abbot
Guibert or the quiet garden-loving archbishop of Dol.
(c) The growth of a legend, or perhaps better, a saga of the First
Crusade began, according to von Sybel, even during the Crusade itself.
The basis of this growth is partly the story-telling instinct innate
in all men, which loves to heighten an effect, sharpen a point or
increase a contrast--the instinct which breathes in Icelandic sagas
like that of _Burnt Njal_; partly the instinct of idolization, if it
may be so called, which leads to the perversion into impossible
greatness of an approved character, and has created, in this instance,
the legendary figures of Peter the Hermit and Godfrey of Bouillon
(qq.v.); partly the religious impulse, which counted nothing wonderful
in a holy war, and imported miraculous elements even into the sober
pages of the _Gesta_. These instincts and impulses would be at work
already among the soldiers during the Crusade, producing a saga all
the more readily, as there were poets in the camp; for we know that a
certain Richard, who joined the First Crusade, sang its exploits in
verse, while still more famous is the princely troubadour, William of
Aquitaine, who joined the Crusade of 1100. If we are to follow von
Sybel rather than Kugler, this saga of the First Crusade found one of
its earliest expressions (c. 1120) in the prose work of Albert of Aix
(_Historia Hierosolymitana_)--genuine saga in its inconsistencies,
its errors of chronology and topography, its poetical colour, and its
living descriptions of battles. Kugler, however, regards Albert as a
copyist, somewhat in the manner of Tudebod, of an unknown writer of
value, who belonged to the Lotharingian ranks during the Crusade, and
settled in the kingdom of Jerusalem afterwards (see Kugler, _Albert
von Aachen_, Stuttgart, 1885).[66] In the _Chanson des chetifs_ and
the _Chanson d'Antioche_ the legend of the Crusades more certainly
finds its expression. The former, composed at Antioch about 1130,
contained an idolization of the Hermit: the latter is a poem written
about 1180 by Graindor of Douai, who used as his basis the verses of
the crusader Richard (see the edition of P. Paris, 1848). It shows the
growth of the legend that Graindor regards the vision of the Hermit as
responsible for the Crusade, and makes the Crusade led by him precede,
and indeed occasion by its failure, the meeting at Clermont (which is
dated in May instead of November). Into the legendary overgrowth of
the First Crusade we cannot here enter any further[67]; but it is
perhaps worth while to mention that the French legend of the Third
Crusade equally perverted the truth, making Richard I. return home in
disgrace, while Philip Augustus stays, captures Damascus and mortally
wounds Saladin (cf. G. Paris, _L'Estoire de la guerre sainte_, Paris,
1897; Introduction).
(d) William of Tyre is the scientific historian and rationalizer,
weaving into a harmonious account, which was followed by historians
for centuries, the sober accounts of eye-witnesses and the picturesque
details of the saga--with somewhat of a bias towards the latter in
regard to the First Crusade. He was a native of Palestine, born about
1130, and educated in the West. On his return he was happy in winning
the good opinion of Amalric I.; he was made first canon and then
archdeacon of Tyre, and tutor of the future Baldwin IV. (1170); while
on Baldwin's accession he became chancellor of the kingdom and
archbishop of Tyre (1174-1175). He was a man often employed on
missions and negotiations, and as chancellor he had in his care the
archives of the kingdom. His temper was naturally that of a trimmer;
and he had thus many qualifications for the writing of well-informed
and unbiassed history. He knew Greek and Arabic; and he was well
acquainted with the affairs of Constantinople, to which he went at
least twice on political business, and with the history of the
Mahommedan powers, on which he had written a work (now lost) at the
command of Amalric. It was Amalric also who set him to write the
history of the Crusades which we still possess (in twenty-two books,
with a fragment of a twenty-third)--the _Historia rerum in partibus
transmarinis gestarum_. He wrote the book at different times between
1170 and 1183, when it abruptly ends, and its author as abruptly
disappears from sight. The book falls into two parts, the first (books
i.-xv.) derivative, the second (books xvi.-xxiii.) original. In the
second part he had his own knowledge of events and the information of
his contemporaries as his source: in the first he used the same
authorities which we still possess--the _Gesta_, Fulcher, and Albert
of Aix--in somewhat of an eclectic spirit, choosing now here, now
there, according as he could best weave a pleasant narrative, but not
according to any real critical principle. His book thus begins to be a
real authority only from the date of the Second Crusade onwards; but
the perfection of his form (for he is one of the greatest stylists of
the middle ages) and the prestige of his position conspired to make
his book the one authority for the whole history of the first century
of the Crusades. Nor was he (apart from his reception of legendary
elements into his narrative) unworthy of the honour in which he was
held; for he is really a great historian, in the form of his matter
and in his conception of his subject--diligent, impartial,
well-informed and interesting, if somewhat rhetorical in style and
vague in chronology.
[During the middle ages his work was current in a French translation,
known as the _Chronique d'outre-mer_, or the _Livre_ or _Roman
d'Eracles_ (so called from the reference at the beginning to the
emperor Heraclius). This translation also contained a continuation by
various hands down to 1277; while besides the continuation embedded in
the _Livre d'Eracles_, there are separate continuations, of the nature
of independent works, by Ernoul and Bernard the Treasurer. These
latter cover the period from 1183 to 1228; and of the two Ernoul's
account seems primary, while that of Bernard is in large part a mere
copy of Ernoul. But the whole subject of the continuators of William
of Tyre is dubious.]
To the Western authorities for the First Crusade must be added the
Eastern--Byzantine, Arabic and Armenian. Of these the Byzantine
authority, the _Alexiad_ of Anna Comnena, is most important, partly
from the position of the authoress, partly from the many points of
contact between the Byzantine empire and the crusaders. Anna's
narrative both furnishes a useful corrective of the prejudiced
Western accounts of Alexius, and serves to bring Bohemund forward into
his proper prominence. The Armenian view of the First Crusade and of
Baldwin's principality of Edessa is presented in the _Armenian
Chronicle_ of Matthew of Edessa. There is little in Arabic bearing on
the First Crusade: the Arabic authorities only begin to be of value
with the rise of the atabegs of Mosul (c. 1127). But Kemal-ud-din's
_History of Aleppo_ (composed in the 13th century) contains some
details on the history of the First Crusade; and the _Vie d'Ousama_
(the autobiography of a sheik at Caesarea in northern Syria, edited
and paraphrased by Derenbourg in the _Publications de l'Ecole des
langues orientales vivantes_) presents the point of view of an Arab
whose life covered the first century of the Crusades (1095-1188).
For the _Second Crusade_ the primary authority in the West is the work
of Odo de Deuil, _De profectione Ludovici VII regis Francorum in
Orientem_. Odo was a monk attached by Suger to Louis VII. during the
Second Crusade; and he wrote home to Suger during the Crusade seven
short letters, afterwards pieced together in a single work. The _Gesta
Friderici Primi_ of Otto of Freising (who joined in the Second
Crusade) gives some details from the German point of view (i. c. 44
sqq.). The former is supplemented by the letters of Louis VII. to
Suger; the latter by the letters of Conrad III. to Wibald, abbot of
Stablo and Corvey. The Byzantine point of view is presented in the
[Greek: 'Epitome] of Cinnamus, the private secretary of Manuel, who
continued the _Alexiad_ of Anna Comnena in a work describing the
reigns of John and Manuel. It is from the Second Crusade that William
of Tyre, representing the attitude of the Franks of Jerusalem, begins
to be a primary authority; while on the Mahommedan side a considerable
authority emerges in Ibn Athir. His history of the Atabegs was written
about 1200, and it presents in a light favourable to Zengi and
Nureddin, but unfavourable to Saladin (who thrust Nureddin's
descendants aside), the history of the great Mahommedan power which
finally crushed the kingdom of Jerusalem.[68]
Side by side with Beha-ud-din's life of Saladin, Ibn Athir's work is
the most considerable historical record written by the Arabs.
Generally speaking the Arabic writings are late in point of date, and
cold and jejune in style; while it must also be remembered that they
are set religious works written to defend Islam. On the other hand
they are generally written by men of affairs--governors, secretaries
or ambassadors; and a fatalistic temper leads their authors to a
certain impartial recording of everything, good or evil, which seems
of moment.
The _Third Crusade_ was narrated in the West from very different
points of view by Anglo-Norman, French and German authorities. The
primary Anglo-Norman authority is the _Carmen Ambrosii_, or, as it is
called by M. Gaston Paris, _L'Estoire de la guerre sainte_. This is an
octosyllabic poem in French verse, written by Ambroise, a Norman
_trouvere_ who followed Richard I. to the Holy Land. The poem first
came to be known by scholars about 1873, and has been edited by M.
Gaston Paris (Paris, 1897). The _Itinerarium Peregrinorum_, a work in
ornate Latin prose, is (except for the first book) a translation of
the _Carmen_ masquerading under the guise of an independent work.
There seems no doubt that it is a piece of plagiary, and that its
writer, Richard, "canon of the Holy Trinity" in London, stands to the
_Carmen_ as Tudebod to the _Gesta_, or Albert of Aix to his supposed
original. The Third Crusade is also described from the English point
of view by all contemporary writers of history in England, e.g. Ralph
of Coggeshall, who used information gained from crusaders, and William
of Newburgh, who had access to a work by Richard I.'s chaplain Anselm,
which is now lost.[69] The French side is presented in Rigord's _Gesta
Philippi Augusti_ and in the _Gesta_ (an abridgment and continuation
of Rigord) and the _Philippeis_ of William the Breton. The two French
writers represent Richard as a faithless vassal: in the German
writers--Tagino, dean of Passau, who wrote a _Descriptio_ of
Barbarossa's Crusade (1189-1190); and Ansbert, an Austrian clerk, who
wrote _De expeditione Friderici Imperatoris_ (1187-1196)--Richard
appears rather as a monster of pride and arrogance. From the Arabic
point of view the life of Richard's rival, Saladin, is described by
Beha-ud-din, a high official under Saladin, who writes a panegyric on
his master, somewhat confused in chronology and partial in its
sympathies, but nevertheless of great value. The various continuations
of William of Tyre above mentioned represent the opinion of the native
Franks (which is hostile to Richard I.); while in Nicetas, who wrote a
history of the Eastern empire from 1118 to 1206, we have a Byzantine
authority who, as Professor Bury remarks, "differs from Anna and
Cinnamus in his tone towards the crusaders, to whom he is surprisingly
fair."
For the _Fourth Crusade_ the primary authority is Villehardouin's _La
Conquete de Constantinople_, an official apology for the diversion of
the Crusade written by one of its leaders, and concealing the arcana
under an appearance of frank naivete. His work is usefully
supplemented by the narrative (_La Prise de Constantinople_) of
Robert de Clary, a knight from Picardy, who presents the non-official
view of the Crusade, as it appeared to an ordinary soldier. The
[Greek: Chronikon ton en Rhomania] (composed in Greek verse some time
after 1300, apparently by an author of mixed Frankish and Greek
parentage, and translated into French at an early date under the title
"The Book of the Conquest of Constantinople and the Empire of
Rumania") narrates in a prologue the events of the Fourth (as indeed
also of the First) Crusade. The _Chronicle of the Morea_ (as this work
is generally called) is written from the Frankish point of view, in
spite of its Greek verse; and the Byzantine point of view must be
sought in Nicetas.[70]
The history of the later Crusades, from the Fifth to the Eighth,
enters into the continuations of William of Tyre above mentioned;
while the _Historia orientalis_ of Jacques de Vitry, who had taken
part in the Fifth Crusade, and died in 1240, embraces the history of
events till 1218 (the third book being a later addition). The _Secreta
fidelium Crucis_ of Marino Sanudo, a history of the Crusades written
by a Venetian noble between 1306 and 1321, is also of value,
particularly for the Crusade of Frederick II. The minor authorities
for the Fifth Crusade have been collected by Rohricht, in the
publications of the Societe de l'Orient Latin for 1879 and 1882; the
ten valuable letters of Oliver, bishop of Paderborn, and the _Historia
Damiettina_, based on these letters, have also been edited by Rohricht
in the _Westdeutsche Zeitschrift fur Geschichte und Kunst_ (1891). The
Sixth Crusade, that of Frederick II., is described in the chronicle of
Richard of San Germano, a notary of the emperor, and in other Western
authorities, e.g. Roger of Wendover. For the Crusades of St Louis the
chief authorities are Joinville's life of his master (whom he
accompanied to Egypt on the Seventh Crusade), and de Nangis' _Gesta
Ludovici regis_. Several works were written on the capture of Acre in
1291, especially the _Excidium urbis Acconensis_, a treatise which
emerges to throw light, after many years of darkness, on the last
hours of the kingdom. The Oriental point of view for the 13th century
appears in Jelaleddin's history of the Ayyubite sultans of Egypt,
written towards the end of the 13th century; in Maqrizi's history of
Egypt, written in the middle of the 15th century; and in the
compendium of the history of the human race by Abulfeda (+1332); while
the omniscient Abulfaragius (whom Rey calls the Eastern St Thomas)
wrote, in the latter half of the 13th century, a chronicle of
universal history in Syriac, which he also issued, in an Arabic
recension, as a _Compendious History of the Dynasties_.
II. The documents bearing on the history of the Crusades and the Latin
kingdom of Jerusalem are various. Under the head of charters come the
_Regesta regni Hierosolymitani_, published by Rohricht, Innsbruck,
1893 (with an Additamentum in 1904); the _Cartulaire generale des
Hospitaliers_, by Delaville Leroulx (Paris, 1894 onwards); and the
_Cartulaire de l'eglise du St Sepulcre_, by de Roziere (Paris, 1849).
Under the head of laws come the assizes of the Kingdom, edited by
Beugnot in the _Recueil des historiens des croisades_; and the assizes
of Antioch, printed at Venice in 1876. G. Schlumberger has written on
the coins and seals of the Latin East in various publications; while
Rey has written an _Etude sur les monuments de l'architecture
militaire_ (Paris, 1871). The genealogy of the Levant is given in _Le
Livre des lignages d'outre-mer_ (published along with the assizes).
BIBLIOGRAPHIES.--The best modern account of the original authorities
for the Crusades is that of A. Molinier, _Les Sources de l'histoire de
France_, vols. ii. and iii. W. Wattenbach's _Deutschlands
Geschichtsquellen_ gives an account of Albert of Aix (vol. ii., ed.
1894, pp. 170-180) and of Ekkehard of Aura (ibid. pp. 189-198). Von
Sybel's _Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges_ contains a full study of
the authorities for the First Crusade; while the prefaces to
Hagenmeyer's editions of the _Gesta_ and of Ekkehard are also
valuable. Gaston Dodu, in the work mentioned below, begins by a brief
account of the original authorities, which is chiefly of value so far
as it deals with William of Tyre and the history of the assizes; and
H. Prutz has also a short account of some of the historians of the
Crusades (_Kulturgeschichte_, pp. 453-469). Finally reference may be
made to the works of Kugler and Klimke above mentioned, and to J. F.
Michaud's _Bibliographie des croisades_ (Paris, 1822).
_Modern Writers._--The various works of R. Rohricht present the
soundest, if not the brightest, account of the Crusades. There is a
_Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzugs_ (Innsbruck, 1901), a _Geschichte des
Konigreichs Jerusalem_ (ibid. 1898) and a _Geschichte der Kreuzzuge in
Umris_ (ibid. 1898). For the First Crusade von Sybel's work and
Chalandon's _Alexis I^er Comnene_ may also be mentioned; for the
Fourth A. Luchaire's volume on _Innocent III: La Question d'Orient_;
while for the whole of the Crusades Norden's _Papstum und Byzanz_ is
of value. B. Kugler's _Geschichte der Kreuzzuge_ (in Oncken's series)
still remains a suggestive and valuable work; and L. Brehier's
_L'Eglise et l'orient au moyen age_ (Paris, 1907) contains not only an
up-to-date account of the Crusades, but also a full and useful
bibliography, which should be consulted for fuller information. On
points of chronology, and on the relations between the crusaders and
their Mahommedan neighbours, W. B. Stevenson's _The Crusaders in the
East_ (Cambridge, 1907) is very valuable. On the constitutional and
social history of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem Dodu's _Histoire des
institutions du royaume latin de Jerusalem_ is very useful; E. G.
Rey's _Les Colonies franques en Syrie_ contains many interesting
details; and Prutz's _Kulturgeschichte der Kreuzzuge_ contains both an
account of the Latin East and an attempt to sketch the effects of the
Crusades on the progress of civilization. The works of Gmelin and J.
Delaville-Leroulx on the Templars and Hospitallers respectively are
worth consulting; while for Eastern affairs the English reader may be
referred to G. Lestrange's _Palestine under the Moslem_, and to
Stanley Lane-Poole's _Life of Saladin_ and his _Mahommedan Dynasties_
(the latter a valuable work of reference). (E. Br.)