[348] The assassination of Conrad is thus related in the continuator of Tabary.—See the MS. of D. Berthereau.
[349] Our author’s argument is very weak here. Gibbon says: “I cannot believe that a soldier so free and fearless in the use of his lance as Richard, would have descended to whet a dagger against his valiant brother Conrad de Montferrat.”—Decline and Fall, vol. viii. p. 426.—Trans.
[350] It is difficult to follow the accounts of several historians at this period, who affirm that Richard was not willing to take Jerusalem. M. Paultre, a distinguished officer who made the campaign of 1799, has furnished us with all the means of understanding the old chronicles, and to appreciate their testimony. Historians, from ignorance of the country, are often deceived with respect to military events. The situation of places and a knowledge of the country are often the best commentaries we can have upon the old historians of the crusades. M. Paultre has himself related part of the events which we repeat; and his account, which he has kindly confided to us, has given us useful information, which will throw light upon this part of our history.
[351] Gibbon’s conclusion is very different. He says, “The laurels of Richard were blasted by the prudence or envy of his companions.”—Trans.
[352] The historian Bohaëddin relates that Richard, in an interview with Aboubeker, the ambassador of Saladin, said “That he only sought for a pretext to return to Europe; that he took little interest in the affairs of Palestine; that the Christians could not stand against the Mussulman power when deprived of his support; that a very small force would be sufficient to take the few places they still possessed; that the sultan need not be difficult, as the peace would only be simulated, and would serve to remove the only obstacle to the conquests of that prince.”—See Life of Saladin, by Marin.
[353] The Latin historians say that the truce was for three years, three months, three weeks, and three days. We prefer the version of the Oriental writers, who say that the truce was for three years and eight months. Omad, whose account we adopt, declares he wrote the treaty with his own hand.
[354] Gibbon says, “A personal interview with Richard was declined by Saladin, who alleged their mutual ignorance of each other’s language.”—Vol. viii. p. 429.—Trans.
[355] L’amour de sa mie.—Trans.
[356] The adventures of the Châtelain de Coucy and the lady de Fayel are related in an old chronicle quoted by the President Faucher. There exists in the Imperial Library a manuscript copy of this chronicle, which appears to have been written towards the beginning of the thirteenth century, a short time after the third crusade. M. Roquefort, whose authority is of great weight in all which concerns the middle ages, does not appear to adopt the account of the chronicle quoted in his article “Coucy” of La Biographie Universelle, and is of the opinion of Father Papon, who attributes the adventure of the Châtelain to the troubadour Cabestan. We may object to M. Roquefort, that the adventure of Cabestan is not the same as that of Coucy, and that one may be true without rendering the other doubtful. We find in the works of Belloc a dissertation which has not been refuted, which proves the truth, if not of some details, of the principal facts related in the chronicle we have quoted.
[357] Saladin had but little indulgence in religious matters. The Abbé Renaudot, in his manuscript history, relates that he caused a philosopher to be strangled who ventured to preach new doctrines in the city of Aleppo.