68 ([return])
[ The religion of the Druses is concealed by their ignorance and hypocrisy. Their secret doctrines are confined to the elect who profess a contemplative life; and the vulgar Druses, the most indifferent of men, occasionally conform to the worship of the Mahometans and Christians of their neighborhood. The little that is, or deserves to be, known, may be seen in the industrious Niebuhr, (Voyages, tom. ii. p. 354-357,) and the second volume of the recent and instructive Travels of M. de Volney. * Note: The religion of the Druses has, within the present year, been fully developed from their own writings, which have long lain neglected in the libraries of Paris and Oxford, in the “Expose de la Religion des Druses, by M. Silvestre de Sacy.” Deux tomes, Paris, 1838. The learned author has prefixed a life of Hakem Biamr-Allah, which enables us to correct several errors in the account of Gibbon. These errors chiefly arose from his want of knowledge or of attention to the chronology of Hakem’s life. Hakem succeeded to the throne of Egypt in the year of the Hegira 386. He did not assume his divinity till 408. His life was indeed “a wild mixture of vice and folly,” to which may be added, of the most sanguinary cruelty. During his reign, 18,000 persons were victims of his ferocity. Yet such is the god, observes M. de Sacy, whom the Druses have worshipped for 800 years! (See p. ccccxxix.) All his wildest and most extravagant actions were interpreted by his followers as having a mystic and allegoric meaning, alluding to the destruction of other religions and the propagation of his own. It does not seem to have been the “vanity” of Hakem which induced him to introduce a new religion. The curious point in the new faith is that Hamza, the son of Ali, the real founder of the Unitarian religion, (such is its boastful title,) was content to take a secondary part. While Hakem was God, the one Supreme, the Imam Hamza was his Intelligence. It was not in his “divine character” that Hakem “hated the Jews and Christians,” but in that of a Mahometan bigot, which he displayed in the earlier years of his reign. His barbarous persecution, and the burning of the church of the Resurrection at Jerusalem, belong entirely to that period; and his assumption of divinity was followed by an edict of toleration to Jews and Christians. The Mahometans, whose religion he then treated with hostility and contempt, being far the most numerous, were his most dangerous enemies, and therefore the objects of his most inveterate hatred. It is another singular fact, that the religion of Hakem was by no means confined to Egypt and Syria. M. de Sacy quotes a letter addressed to the chief of the sect in India; and there is likewise a letter to the Byzantine emperor Constantine, son of Armanous, (Romanus,) and the clergy of the empire. (Constantine VIII., M. de Sacy supposes, but this is irreconcilable with chronology; it must mean Constantine XI., Monomachus.) The assassination of Hakem is, of course, disbelieved by his sectaries. M. de Sacy seems to consider the fact obscure and doubtful. According to his followers he disappeared, but is hereafter to return. At his return the resurrection is to take place; the triumph of Unitarianism, and the final discomfiture of all other religions. The temple of Mecca is especially devoted to destruction. It is remarkable that one of the signs of this final consummation, and of the reappearance of Hakem, is that Christianity shall be gaining a manifest predominance over Mahometanism. As for the religion of the Druses, I cannot agree with Gibbon that it does not “deserve” to be better known; and am grateful to M. de Sacy, notwithstanding the prolixity and occasional repetition in his two large volumes, for the full examination of the most extraordinary religious aberration which ever extensively affected the mind of man. The worship of a mad tyrant is the basis of a subtle metaphysical creed, and of a severe, and even ascetic, morality.—M.]
69 ([return])
[ See Glaber, l. iii. c. 7, and the Annals of Baronius and Pagi, A.D. 1009.]
70 ([return])
[ Per idem tempus ex universo orbe tam innumerabilis multitudo coepit confluere ad sepulchrum Salvatoris Hierosolymis, quantum nullus hominum prius sperare poterat. Ordo inferioris plebis.... mediocres.... reges et comites..... praesules ..... mulieres multae nobilis cum pauperioribus.... Pluribus enim erat mentis desiderium mori priusquam ad propria reverterentur, (Glaber, l. iv. c. 6, Bouquet. Historians of France, tom. x. p. 50.) * Note: Compare the first chap. of Wilken, Geschichte der Kreuz-zuge.—M.]
71 ([return])
[ Glaber, l. iii. c. 1. Katona (Hist. Critic. Regum Hungariae, tom. i. p. 304-311) examines whether St. Stephen founded a monastery at Jerusalem.]
72 ([return])
[ Baronius (A.D. 1064, No. 43-56) has transcribed the greater part of the original narratives of Ingulphus, Marianus, and Lambertus.]
After the defeat of the Romans, the tranquillity of the Fatimite caliphs was invaded by the Turks. [73] One of the lieutenants of Malek Shah, Atsiz the Carizmian, marched into Syria at the head of a powerful army, and reduced Damascus by famine and the sword. Hems, and the other cities of the province, acknowledged the caliph of Bagdad and the sultan of Persia; and the victorious emir advanced without resistance to the banks of the Nile: the Fatimite was preparing to fly into the heart of Africa; but the negroes of his guard and the inhabitants of Cairo made a desperate sally, and repulsed the Turk from the confines of Egypt. In his retreat he indulged the license of slaughter and rapine: the judge and notaries of Jerusalem were invited to his camp; and their execution was followed by the massacre of three thousand citizens. The cruelty or the defeat of Atsiz was soon punished by the sultan Toucush, the brother of Malek Shah, who, with a higher title and more formidable powers, asserted the dominion of Syria and Palestine. The house of Seljuk reigned about twenty years in Jerusalem; [74] but the hereditary command of the holy city and territory was intrusted or abandoned to the emir Ortok, the chief of a tribe of Turkmans, whose children, after their expulsion from Palestine, formed two dynasties on the borders of Armenia and Assyria. [75] The Oriental Christians and the Latin pilgrims deplored a revolution, which, instead of the regular government and old alliance of the caliphs, imposed on their necks the iron yoke of the strangers of the North. [76] In his court and camp the great sultan had adopted in some degree the arts and manners of Persia; but the body of the Turkish nation, and more especially the pastoral tribes, still breathed the fierceness of the desert. From Nice to Jerusalem, the western countries of Asia were a scene of foreign and domestic hostility; and the shepherds of Palestine, who held a precarious sway on a doubtful frontier, had neither leisure nor capacity to await the slow profits of commercial and religious freedom. The pilgrims, who, through innumerable perils, had reached the gates of Jerusalem, were the victims of private rapine or public oppression, and often sunk under the pressure of famine and disease, before they were permitted to salute the holy sepulchre. A spirit of native barbarism, or recent zeal, prompted the Turkmans to insult the clergy of every sect: the patriarch was dragged by the hair along the pavement, and cast into a dungeon, to extort a ransom from the sympathy of his flock; and the divine worship in the church of the Resurrection was often disturbed by the savage rudeness of its masters. The pathetic tale excited the millions of the West to march under the standard of the cross to the relief of the Holy Land; and yet how trifling is the sum of these accumulated evils, if compared with the single act of the sacrilege of Hakem, which had been so patiently endured by the Latin Christians! A slighter provocation inflamed the more irascible temper of their descendants: a new spirit had arisen of religious chivalry and papal dominion; a nerve was touched of exquisite feeling; and the sensation vibrated to the heart of Europe.