[33] Ingulfus, a Norman monk, who had accompanied the pilgrims who left Normandy, has made the relation of this pilgrimage. The account of Ingulfus has been copied almost literally by Baronius. An account of the same pilgrimage is likewise to be found in the chronicle of Marianus Scotus pp. 429, 430.
[34] It would have been easy for me to have spoken of a great number of other pilgrimages undertaken before the Crusades. An abridgment of the most interesting accounts will be found in the Appendix at the end of this volume.
[35] A picture of the excesses and shameless debaucheries committed by the Turks after the conquest of Asia Minor, may be found in a letter of Alexis, quoted by the Abbé Guibert, lib. i., cap. 4: “Dicit eos quemdam abusione sodomiticâ intervenisse episcopum; matres correptæ in conspectu filiarum multipliciter repetitis diversorum coitibus vexabantur. Filiæ existentiæ terminum præcinere saltando cogebantur,—mox eadem passio ad filias,” &c.
[36] This expedition, which was a true crusade, appears to have been forgotten by all the historians of the crusades.
[37] Al-Mahadia, the chief of the cities conquered by the Christians, according to Oriental geographers, was founded in the year 303 of the Hegira, by Obeidallah, or Abdallah. It was still considerable in the fifteenth century. Shaw, who saw it in 1730, calls it El-Medea. It is situated thirty marine leagues south of Tunis. Sibila, which is the other city conquered in this expedition, and which Shaw takes for the ancient Turris Annibalis, is two leagues more to the south, on the same coast of the Mediterranean.
[38] Anna Comnena calls Peter the Hermit Cucupièttore, which appears to be taken from the Picard word kiokio, little, and from the word Petrus, Peter, little Peter. If we are to believe Oderic-Vital, the hermit had still another name, and was called Peter of Achiris. He is styled in this manner in the chronicle of the counts of Anjou: “Heremita quidam Petrus Achiriensis.” William of Tyre informs us that he was a hermit in name and in fact: “Heremita nomine et effectu.” Adrian Barland, in his book De Gestis Ducum Brabantiæ, expresses himself thus: “Petrus Heremita, Ambianensis, vir nobilis, primâ ætete rei militari deditus, tametsi litteris optimè imbutus, sed corpore deformis ac brevis staturæ,” &c. The life of Peter the Hermit has been written by André Thevet, in his “History of the most Illustrious and Learned Men of their Ages,” and by Father Outtreman, a Jesuit. Several families have pretended to be descended from Peter the Hermit. The most rational and best supported claim is that of the family of Souliers, which still exists in the Limousin.
[39] This letter of Alexius, quoted in extract by the Abbé Guibert, and the whole of it by Robert the Monk. M. Heeren, in his learned Latin commentary on the Greek historians, doubts its authenticity. The principal reason he gives for his opinion is, that this letter differs too strongly from the known character of the Greek emperors. This reason does not appear to me sufficient; we know very well that the Greek emperors affected great haughtiness in their correspondence, but we know also that they spared no prayers when they were in any danger, or wanted assistance: nothing suits better with vanity than servility. Some critics cannot believe that Alexius should have spoken in his letters of the beautiful women of Greece; the thing may, however, well be believed when we recollect that the Turks, who were invading the empire of Byzantium, sought with great eagerness to obtain Greek women. Montesquieu remarks it, when speaking of the decline of the empire. It seems then very natural that Alexius should speak of the beautiful women of Byzantium, when addressing the Franks, whom the Greeks considered barbarians, and governed by the same tastes as the Turks.
[40] See William Aubert’s “History of the Conquest of Jerusalem.”
[41] We have at command several historians who report the speech of Urban; they are agreed as to the principal points, but differ in the details. The monk Robert, who was present at the council, says: Hæc et id genus plurima ubi Papa Urbanus urbano sermone peroravit. Baldric or Boudri expresses himself thus: His vel hujuscemodi aliis, &c. Everything leads us to believe that the pope pronounced his discourse in the language of the country. That which renders this opinion more probable, is that Urban was a Frenchman, and that otherwise it was of consequence to make himself well understood by the barons and the knights, who were not acquainted with Latin. If he had not pronounced his discourse in the vulgar tongue, he would not have produced that extraordinary enthusiasm which contemporary history says so much of.
[42] Dieu le veut was pronounced in the language of the times Dieu li volt, or Diex le volt.