[166] The chevalier le Felart, in his treaty on The Attack of Places, at the end of his commentary upon Polybius, speaks of the tower of Godfrey, which he improperly calls the tower of Frederick the First of Jerusalem. He gives a detailed and very exact description of this tower, which is likewise well described by contemporary historians.
[167] Cruces fixerunt, super quas aut spuebant, aut in oculis omnium mingere non abhorrebant.—Ab. Aq. lib. vi.
[168] See, for this procession, Baldric, bishop of Dol. lib. iv.; Accolte, lib. iv.; Albert d’Aix, lib. vi.; William of Tyre, lib. vii. It cannot be doubted that the leaders caused this procession to be made round Jerusalem, in order that the sight of so many places should arouse the enthusiasm of the Crusaders. We must regret that Tasso, who speaks of this procession, has scarcely said anything of the places the Christians visited; these details would have furnished poetical beauties, without in anything departing from the exactitude of history.
[169] Raymond d’Agiles says that Godfrey’s tower was transplanted by night a mile from the spot where it had been constructed; which leads us to believe that the principal attack was directed near the gate of Cedar, towards the entrance of the Valley of Jehoshaphat. For the rest, we must regret that M. de Chateaubriand, who has written a very interesting dissertation upon the military positions of Tasso, has not thrown light upon the obscurities of the historians which present themselves in this portion of their accounts of the siege.
[170] This circumstance is thus related by Abbot Guibert:—Est etiam mihi non inferiori relatione compertum, Robertum Normandiæ comitem Robertumque alterum Flandriarum principem, junctis pariter convenisse mœroribus, et se cum fletibus uberrimis conclamasse miserrimos, quos suæ adoratione crucis, et visione, immo veneratione sepulchri, tantoperè Jesus Dominus judicaret indignos.—Lib. vii. cap. 6.
[171] As Tasso often employs magic, we have sought with care for all that relates to this species of the marvellous in the contemporary historians. That which we have just quoted from William of Tyre, is the only instance we have been able to find. Some historians likewise have said that the mother of Kerboghâ was a sorceress, and that she had foretold to her son the defeat of Antioch. It is in vain to seek for similar incidents in the history of the first crusade. We ought to add that magic was much less in vogue in the twelfth century than in that in which Tasso lived. The Crusaders were no doubt very superstitious, but their superstitions were not attached to little things; they were struck by the phenomena they saw in the heavens; they believed in the appearance of saints, and in revelations made by God himself, but not in magicians. Ideas of magic came to us a long time afterwards, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The chroniclers of that period, who speak of anterior facts, fill their recitals with whimsical and ridiculous fables, such as are not to be found in more ancient authors. We must not judge of the middle ages by the chronicles of Robert Gaguin, or by those of Archbishop Turpin, the work of a monk of the twelfth century; still less by the romances of the same period.
[172] We report this circumstance here, in order to give an idea of the fire which was launched against the Christians. Albert d’Aix expresses himself thus:—Qualiter ignis, aquâ inextinguibilis solo aceti liquore restingui valeat.—Alb. Aq. lib. vi. cap. 18.
[173] This is repeated by William of Tyre and some other writers. Raymond d’Agiles very naively says: Quis autem miles ille fuerit cognoscere non potuimus.—Raym. d’Ag. p. 171, Bongars.
[174] Matthew of Edessa says that Godfrey used in this assault the sword of Vespasian, which thus assisted, for the third time, in the destruction of Jerusalem. No Latin historian mentions it.
[175] Oderic Vital attributes to Reimbault Creton of Cambresis the glory of having first entered Jerusalem. Other historians only name him among those who followed most closely the steps of the brothers Lethalde and Engelbert of Tournai. This is the text of Orderic Vital:—Reimboldus Creton qui primus in expugnatione Jerusalem ingressus est, &c. The descendants of Reimbolt Creton bore indifferently up to the sixteenth century the names of Creton and Estourmel. This family preserved as its device these words, “Vaillant sur la crête;” and La Morliere, the historian of Picardy under Louis XIII., speaks of them in these terms: “It adds not a little to the lustre of this family, that it is acknowledged that they owe the origin of their arms to the first crusade which the Christians made for the recovery of the Holy Land, bestowed by the hand of Godfrey of Bouillon, king of Jerusalem, who, to do honour to the valour of the sieur d’Estourmel, whom he had seen bear himself so valiantly at the taking of that city, made him a present of a crenated cross of silver, in which was enchased a piece of the true cross.” This precious reliquary was passed down from generation to generation to the eldest sons of this house. In the reign of Louis XIII. the marquis d’Hautefort having espoused the only daughter of Antoine d’Estourmel, cordon bleu, and first equerry to madame la duchesse d’Orléans, pretended that this piece of the true cross made a part of the inheritance. This discussion was submitted to the arbitration of the president of Mesmes, who decided that the cross was to revert to the branch of the house of Estourmel, which possesses it to this day.