[300] Schahabbedin, Tabari, and Aboulfeda relate this fact at great length.
[301] I am inclined to think this was a kind of ceremony—the liege lord demanding entrance to the fortress of his vassal.—Trans.
[302] Jacques de Vitri does not spare the Christians of the East in his History, particularly in the chapters entitled “De corruptione prælatorum; de regularibus irregulariter viventibus; de corruptione Terræ Sanctæ.” The satires of Juvenal would appear moderate by the side of the pages of this historian, who had been in the Holy Land in the quality of a legate.
[303] This was the same Andronicus who afterwards ascended the throne of Constantinople, and became notorious for his cruelties.
[304] The Latin history of the kingdom of Jerusalem contains this curious passage: Quidam verò, ut fama ferebat, ardentiùs cæteris movebatur, et abscissis viri genitalibus, ea tanquam in usum gignendi reservare deposuit, ut vel mortua membra, si fieri posset, virtutis tantæ suscitarent hæredem.—See the Collection of Bongars, p. 1151.
[305] Among the Christian historians who have spoken of the battle of Tiberias, the following may be consulted: Chronica Terræ Sanctæ; the two continuations of William of Tyre, by Harold and Hugh de Plagon; and the Latin history of Jerusalem. Jacques de Vitri, William de Newbridge, the Chronicle of Gervais, Paule Emile Roger de Hoveden, and Matthew Paris also give some details of this battle, and of the events by which it was followed. None of these authors, however, have described it at sufficient length to give a complete idea of it; they are not even always agreed, and ought to be read with much precaution.
[306] Saladin adds in his letter that the Franks flew round the cross like moths round light.
[307] The continuator of Tabary speaks with much detail of this battle; the author of the Roudatain, in the description which he has given of this day, shows all the enthusiasm of a Mussulman. We find in these two histories, and even in Omad ’the secretary of Saladin), more words than things, more Oriental figures than historical circumstances. They may, however, be profitably consulted by comparing their accounts with those of the Latins.
[308] Many Christian historians accuse Raymond of having assisted the cause of Saladin. No Mussulman historian is of this opinion; indeed several of them speak of him as the most cruel enemy of the Saracens. The continuator of Tabary positively says that the count of Tripoli was opposed to the marching of the Franks towards Tiberias. M. Marin, in his History of Saladin, has discussed this point of history, and the proofs that he gives leave no doubt respecting the sincerity of the intentions of Raymond. Abulfeda, in the short description which he gives of the day of Hetin, praises the valour of Raymond, and says that he died of the grief created by the defeat of the Christians. In a letter written in the name of Saladin by the Cadi Alfdel to the Iman Nassir-Sedin-Illah-Aboul-Abbas-Ahmed, are these remarkable words: “Not one of the Christians was able to escape except the count of Tripoli. May God curse him; God caused him afterwards to die, and sent him from the kingdom of death to hell.” This letter of Saladin’s, which speaks also of the taking of Jerusalem, has been preserved by Ebu-Khilcan in his Biography. M. Jourdain had the intention of giving a translation of it; but the text presents so many difficulties, from the use of Oriental figures and bad copying, that he was obliged to be satisfied with making some extracts from it.
[309] For the siege of Jerusalem we may consult the continuator of Tabary, the author of the Roudatains, and the letter from Saladin before mentioned. All the Arabian historians are agreed as to the principal circumstances. Moujireddin, in his History of Jerusalem, of all the Arabian writers of this period, gives the fewest particulars of the siege and capture of the holy city. We need not repeat that the greater part of these historians are known to us by the Latin extracts of Dom. Bertreau.