O Deus verus, trinus et unus, quam ob rem hæc fieri permisisti? cur populum sequentem te in manibus inimicorum incidere permisisti? et viam tui itineris, tuique sancti sepulchri liberantem tarn citò mori concessisti? Profectò, si hoc verum est, quod nos ab istis nequissimis audivimus, nobis referentibus, nos et alii Christiani derelinquemus te, nec te amplius remorabimur, et unus ex nobis non audebit ulteriùs nomen tuum invocare. Et fuit is sermo mœstissimus valor in totâ militiâ; ita quòd nullus nostrorum audebat, neque archiepiscopus, neque episcopus, neque abbas, neque presbyter, neque clericus, neque quisque laicus Christi invocare nomen per plures dies. Nemo poterat consolari Guidonem.—De Hierosolymitano itinere, Duchéne’s Collection, tom. iv. p. 799.
The following is the speech which Robert the Monk puts into the mouth of Guy, the brother of Bohemond:—
O Deus omnipotens, ubi est virtus tua? Si omnipotens es, cur hæc fieri consensisti? Nonne erant milites tui et peregrini? Quis unquam rex aut imperator aut potens dominus familiam suam ita permisit occidi, si ullo modo potuit adjuvare? Quis erit unquam miles tuus aut peregrinus? &c. &c.—Robert. Monach. lib. v.
[121] We have thought it our duty to report all these miraculous visions as they are found in contemporary historians, because they produced a great effect upon the mind of the Christians, and that in becoming the origin and the cause of the greatest events, they are in themselves important events for history.
[122] The discovery of this lance and the prodigies that it operated are related by all the historians of the Crusades. The Arabian historian Aboul-Mabaçen agrees, in the principal circumstances, with the Latin historians. The most credulous of the latter, and he who gives the greatest number of details, is Raymond d’Agiles. Albert d’Aix, William of Tyre, Guibert, and Robert, raise not the least doubt about the authenticity of the lance. Foucher de Chartres, less credulous, says, when relating the discovery, Audi fraudem et non fraudem. He afterward adds, whilst speaking of the lance, that it had been concealed in the place from which it was taken: Invenit lanceam, falliciter occultatam forsitan. The historian Paulus Emilius, who relates the same fact accompanies it with highly philosophical reflections. Yves Duchat says, on commencing the relation “Then there happened a marvellous affair, of which some have left a written account, which I would not affirm to be entirely true, nor would I oppugn it as false.” Anna Comnena says nothing about the lance, but speaks of the nails which had been used to nail Christ to the cross. Albufaradge commits the same error. In general the accounts of both the Greeks and the Arabians of this war must be read with much precaution; they furnish us with very few positive ideas.
[123] This speech is reported by most of the Latin historians of the crusades. We have preserved the spirit of it, with the most scrupulous exactness.
[124] Anna Comnena speaks of a pretended single combat between the count of Flanders and the general of the Saracens.
[125] Letanias supplices, ab ecclesiâ in ecclesiam, explicant; confessione peceatorum sincerâ se mundant, et episcopali vel sacerdotali consequenter absolutione promeritâ, corporis ac sanguinis Domini sacramento, plenâ fide communicant, &c.—Guibert, lib. vi.
Missæ per ecclesias celebratæ sunt; omnesque sanctâ dominici corporis communione communicati sunt.—Robert. Mon. lib. vii.
[126] Vidi ego hæc quæ loquor, et dominicam lanceam ibi ferebam.—Raym. d’Agiles, p. 155, apud Beng.