[310] Most historians say that Saladin granted a delay of forty days to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In the position that matters were in, Saladin could not remain forty days before a captured city; and what proves that historians are mistaken in this respect is, that they themselves say that Saladin took Jerusalem in the beginning of October, and that he set out on the day of All Saints, which is always the first of November, from Ptolemaïs to go to the siege of the city of Tyre.
[311] Marin and most historians say that Sibylla was not at Jerusalem during the siege: they are in error. The author of the Roudatains says positively that that princess came out of Jerusalem with the other captives, followed by her treasures and her attendants. She asked permission of Saladin to rejoin her husband, who was then detained a prisoner at Naplouse.
[312] This fact, which is not mentioned by our Western authors, is related with many details by Bohaëddin and Abulfeda.
[313] These prodigies remind us of those related by the historian Josephus, in his account of the conquest of Jerusalem.
[314] Marin, in his History of Saladin, and several others after him, have pretended that the William who came into Europe to preach the crusade, was not the author of the History of Jerusalem. This assertion is founded on an obscure passage of Hugh de Plagon, and is not at all confirmed by the testimony of contemporary historians. Matthew Paris, and all the other authors of the time, give the name of William to the archbishop of Tyre who came into Europe; if this William had not been the same as the historian of this name, would it not have been remarked by contemporary chronicles? All these chronicles give us some details of the birth and life of William, author of the History of Jerusalem; and if another William, archbishop of Tyre, came into the West, why have not the historians of the time made him known, and said something of him? His mission was sufficiently important, the see in which he was placed attracted attention enough, for the second to be mentioned as well as the first, if there was one.
[315] For the history of this period, the following authors may be consulted with advantage:—The Acts of Rymer, the historian Rigord, Roger of Hoveden, Matthew Paris, William of Newbridge, the Chronicle of Alberic of Trois Fontaines, Otho of St. Blaise, Brompton, the Chronicle of Gervais, &c.
[316] “The noblest monument of a conqueror’s fame and of the terror which he inspired, is the Saladin tenth.”—Gibbon.—Trans.
[317] There is extant in Latin an account of the journey of Archbishop Baldwin through the country of Wales, entitled Itinerarium Cambriæ, drawn up by Barry, who accompanied the preacher of the crusade. This journey is curious, from the singular prodigies and miracles which are related in it. If this relation may be credited, Archbishop Baldwin neglected no means to induce the people to take the cross; he enrolled one day, says Barry, a great number of men who came to him in a state of nudity, their clothes being secreted by their wives and friends, who wished to prevent their going.
[318] The discourse of Peter of Blois, which is printed in his works, has for title, Tractatus de Jerosolymitanâ Peregrinatione. After having quoted several passages from the Bible and Testament to exhort the Crusaders to set out, he cites two verses from the tenth chapter of Juvenal, and two verses from the Fasti of Ovid. He is not satisfied with presenting to the pilgrims the example of Abraham, but points out to them all the kings and captains of profane antiquity. Peter of Blois does not spare, in his discourse, the princes and nobles who compelled the clergy to pay tribute towards the expenses of the holy war.
[319] Cantipratensis apud Surium, die Junii, cap. 20. This is likewise related by Besoldo, De Regibus Hyerosolimitanorum, p. 274.