Milites aspiceres super muros stantes
Turcos, sanctam manibus crucem elevantes
Cum flagellis asperis eam verberantes,
Et cum impropriis nobis minitantes.
[339] “One of our people,” says Omad, “having been made prisoner, was burnt, and the flames accompanied him to his place of everlasting repose; we took a Christian, we burnt him, and the flames that devoured him mingled with the fires of hell.”—See the MS. of Dom Berthereau.
[340] A combat of children is related by Omad of Ispahan; and the same author speaks of the Christian heroines who mingled in the fight. He adds, that the young women fought, and the old women animated them by their cries.
[341] The march and the contests of the Christians and the Mussulmans are described in fullest detail by Omad-al-Kabel, secretary to Saladin, in his book entitled the Pheta; and by Schahabeddin, author of the Roudalain. These two historians almost always make the Mussulmans triumph. “We have,” say they, “animated the tongues of lances and swords to speak to the Christians, and to hear their words. Then God rendered sweet to us all that was bitter, and by his goodness drew near to us all that was at a distance.” We shall not follow these two historians, nor even Bohaddin, through the combats of the Mussulmans and Christians, combats in which the latter are, by their account, always conquered, and yet always continue to advance into their enemy’s country.
[342] Omad says that the Mussulmans surrounded the army of their enemy as the eyelashes surround the eye. The Mussulman authors speak highly of Jacques d’Avesnes. All the historians of Saladin do not agree as to his defeat, and say that Richard got possession of Jaffa after being conquered. Aboulfeda is more honest; Tabary agrees also that the Mussulmans were put to flight; the same historian adds to his faithful account the following remarkable circumstance: “Near the Mussulman army was a thick wood, into which they retreated. The Franks believed that this retreat was a stratagem, and did not dare to pursue their enemies, whom they might have destroyed if they had followed up their victory.” For these authors, see the Latin extracts of Dom Berthereau.
[343] Arabian historians say nothing of the single combat between Richard and Saladin. English historians alone mention it.
[344] I cannot attach much consequence to the silence of the Arabian writers on this subject, neither can I think, with our author, such a rencontre so improbable in such a mêlée. The principal argument against it is, that Saladin survived the battle. Richard was at least twelve years younger than Saladin, and in the full vigour of a large, powerful frame, whilst Saladin was weakened by toil and disease.—Trans.
[345] This gallant act of devotedness of William de Pourcelet, a Provençal gentleman, is related by both the Latin and Oriental historians.
[346] This negotiation is related by the principal Arabian historians. Bohaëddin and the author of the Phatah. Although Christian writers have not spoken of it, it would be difficult to cast doubt upon, or weaken the evidence of Arabian authors, who were ocular witnesses, and were themselves mixed up with the affair. It is this negotiation that gave Madame Cottin the idea of her romance of Mathilda, or the Crusades; a work full of eloquent pictures and heroic sentiments, drawn from the history of chivalry.
[347] M. Paultre, in his manuscript history of the states of Syria, believes that this city, so named by the historians of the crusade, is the city of Eleutheropolis, situated nine or ten leagues east of Ascalon, on the road to Jerusalem, in a valley crossed by the torrent of Ascalon, seven leagues west of Jerusalem, and six of Ramla.