presbyter before he gained the kingdom, most persons continued to call him Prester John after he had acquired regal dignity 3. 3 The statement here made, respecting the famous Prester John, whom our ancestors from the twelfth century onwards supposed to be the greatest and most prosperous of all kings, not only have the greatest appearance of probability among all the accounts that are given of him, but are also supported by the testimony of writers of candour, and the most worthy of credit; namely, William of Tripoli, (see Carolus Du Fresne, notes to Joinville's Life of St. Lewis, p. 89.) the bishop of Gabul, in Otto of Frisingen's Chronicon, lib. vii. c. 33. (This bishop had come to Rome to obtain the decision of an umpire of the controversies between the Armenian and Greek churches. On this occasion he related, that a few years before, one John who lived in the extremities of the east, beyond Persia and Armenia, and was both a king and a priest, had, with his people, become a Nestorian christian; that he had vanquished the Median and Persian kings, and attempted to march to the aid of the church at Jerusalem, but was obliged to desist from the enterprise, because he was unable to pass the Tigris. This king was descended from the Magians mentioned in the gospel, and was so rich that he had a sceptre of emerald. Schl.) William Rubruquis, Voyage, c. xviii. p. 36, in the Antiqua in Asiam Itinera, collected by P. Gerberon; and Alberic, Chronicon, ad ann. 1165 and 1170; in Leibnitz's Accessiones Historica, tom. ii. p. 345 and 355, and others. It is strange that these testimonies should have been disregarded by learned men, and that so many opinions and disputes should have arisen respecting Prester John and the region in which he lived, and should have continued down even to our times. But such is the human character, that what has most simplicity and plainness, is despised, and what is marvellous and obscure is preferred. Peter Covillanus, who was directed in the fifteenth century by John II., king of Portugal, to make inquiries respecting the kingdom of Prester John, when he arrived in Abyssinia with his companions, on discovering many things in the emperor of the Abyssinians or Ethiopians analogous to what was then currently reported in Europe respecting Prester John, supposed that he had discovered that John whom he was ordered to inquire after. And he easily persuaded the Europeans, then scarcely emerged from barbarism, to fall in with his opinions. See John Morin, de Sacris Ecclesiæ Ordinationibus, pt. ii. p. 367, &c. But in the seventeenth century, many writings having been brought to light which had been unknown, the learned in great numbers abandoned this Portuguese conjecture, and agree that Prester John must have reigned in Asia; but they still disagreed as to the location of his kingdom and some other points. Yet there are some even in our times, and among the most learned men, who choose to give credit to the Portuguese, though supported by no proofs and authorities, that the Abyssinian emperor is that mighty Prester John, rather than follow the many contemporary and competent witnesses. See Euseb. Renaudot, Historia Patriarch. Alexandrin. p. 223. 337. Jos. Franc. Lafitau, Histoire des Découvertes des Portugais, tom. i. p. 58, and tom. iii. p. 57. Henr. Le Grand, Diss. de Johanni Presbyt. in Lobo's Voyage d'Abissinie, tom. i. p. 295, &c. [See above, note p. 257, and Mosheim's Historia Tartaror. Eccles. p. 16, &c. Baronius, Annales, ad ann. 1177. § 55, gives us the title of an epistle written by pope Alexander III. to Prester John, which shows that he was an Indian prince, and a priest: "Alexander Episcopus, servus servorum Dei, charissimo in Christo filio illustri et magnifico Indorum regi, sacerdotum sanctissimo, salutem et Apostolicam benedictionem." Tr.-That the Dalai Lama was the Prester John, is denied by Paulsen, the real author of Mosheim's Hist. Tartaror. Ecclesiastica. Yet more recently Joh. Eberh. Fischer, in his Introduction to the History of Siberia, p. 81, (in German,) has maintained this opinion; and endeavoured to show, that the Dalai Lonna (Lama), and Prester John, are the same person; and that the latter name is a fictitious 1 His regal name was Ungchan. The exalted opinion of the power and riches of this Prester John, entertained by the Greeks and Latins, arose from this, that being elated with his prosperity and the success of his wars with the neighbouring nations, he sent ambassadors and letters to the Roman emperor Frederic I., to the Greek emperor Manuel, and to other sovereigns, in which he extravagantly proclaimed his own majesty and wealth and power, exalting himself above all the kings of the earth and this boasting of the vain-glorious man, the Nestorians laboured with all their power to confirm. He was succeeded by his son or brother, whose proper name was David, but who was also generally called Prester John. This prince was vanquished and slain, near the close of the century, by that mighty Tartar emperor, Genghiskan. § 8. The new kingdom of Jerusalem in Syria, established in the preceding century by the French, seemed at the beginning of this century to flourish and to stand firm. But this prosperity was soon succeeded by adversity. For most of the crusaders having returned home, and the christian generals and princes that remained in Palestine being more attentive to their pri vate advantages than to the public good, the Muhammedans recovered from their sudden terror and consternation, and collecting troops and resources on every side, attacked and harassed the christians with perpetual wars. During many years they opposed the enemy with valour: but when Atabec Zenghi*, after a long siege, had taken the city of Edessa, and seemed disposed to attack Antioch, the courage of the christians began word, which the Europeans did not correctly understand. And whoever is sensible, how low a people may sink under the influence of superstition, will not deem the idolatry of the Thibetians full proof, that the Grand Lama and Prester John could not be the same person. At least, if reliance may be put upon the account of the Augustinian eremite George, (of which Gatterer's Algem. Hist. Bibl. contains an extract,) it was in the beginning of the twelfth century, that the regal power in Thibet was first joined with that of the Grand Lama: which is a new argument in favour of Fischer's opinion. See the Hist. Bibl. vol. viii. p. 191. Schl.-But this hypothesis of Fischer seems to be fully subverted by the arguments of Mosheim and Paulsen, Hist. Tartaror. Eccles. p. 137, &c. See Schroeckh's Kirchengesch. vol. xxv. p. 192. Tr.] 4 Atabec was an official title given by the Seljukian emperors or Sultans to the lieutenants or viceroys whom they placed over certain provinces. The Latin historians of the crusades, of whom a catalogue is collected by Jac. Bongarsius, call this Atabec Zenghi, Sanguinus. See Barth. Herbelot, Biblioth. Orientale, article Atabeck, p. 142. to fail. They therefore implored the succour of the christian kings of Europe, and with tears supplicated for new armies of crusaders. The Roman pontiffs favoured these petitions, and left no means untried to persuade the emperor and the other sovereigns to undertake another expedition to Palestine. $9. This new crusade was long a subject of debate in some of the popular assemblies and in the councils. At length, under the pontiff Eugene III., the celebrated abbot of Clairval in France, St. Bernard, a man of immense influence, brought the question to an issue. For as he, in the year 1146, preached the cross, (as the phrase then was,) in both France and Germany, but especially in a public assembly of the French at Vezelay, and promised, in the name of God, great victories, and a most prosperous issue of the enterprise, Lewis VII., king of the French, his queen, and a vast number of nobles who were present, devoted themselves to the sacred war. Conrad III., emperor of the Germans, at first resisted the admonitions of St. Bernard: but after some delay, he followed the example of the French king. Both, therefore, proceeded towards Palestine, with very numerous armies, by different routes. But the greater part of both armies perished miserably on the road, either by famine or by shipwreck, or by the sword of the Muhammedans; to whom they were betrayed by the perfidious Greeks, who feared the Latins more than they did the Muhammedans. Lewis VII. left his country in the year 1147, and arrived at Antioch in the month of March in the following year, with a small army, and that exhausted by its sufferings. Conrad commenced his march in the month of May, 1147, and in November of the same year joined Lewis at Nice, having lost the greater part of his troops by the way. Both proceeded to Jerusalem in the year 1148; and they led back to Europe the few soldiers that survived, in the year 1149. For these princes were unable to effect any thing, among other causes, on account of the disagreement between them. The only effect of this second crusade was, to drain Europe of a great portion of its wealth, and of a vast number of its inhabitants'. 5 Besides the historians of the cru- Jo. Mabillon's Annales Benedict. tom. sades mentioned by Bongarsius, see vi. p. 399. 404. 407. 417. 451, &c. Jac. § 10. Yet the unhappy issue of this second crusade did not render the christian cause in the East absolutely desperate. If the christian princes had attacked the enemy with their combined strength, and acted in harmony, they would have had little to fear. But all the Latins, and especially their chiefs, abandoning themselves without restraint to ambition, avarice, injustice, and other vices, weakened each other by their mutual contentions, jealousies, and broils. Hence a valiant general of the Muhammedans, Salaheddin, whom the Latins call Saladin, viceroy, or rather king, of Egypt and Syria, assailed the christians in the most successful manner, captured Guy of Lusignan, the king of Jerusalem, in the fatal battle of Tiberias, A. D. Gervais, Histoire de l'Abbé Suger, tom. iii. p. 104. 128. 173. 190. 239, &c. This Suger, a famous abbot of St. Denys, was left by Lewis VII. to govern his kingdom during his absence. Vertot, Histoire des Chevaliers de Malte, tom. i. p. 86, &c. Jo. Jac. Mascov, de Rebus imperii sub Conrado III. [The French army of crusaders consisted of rising 100,000 armed men, of whom 70,000 were mounted cuirassiers, and the rest infantry. The German army was of about the same number. The emperor moved first, pursuing a direct course through Hungary, Bulgaria, and Thrace, to Constantinople, where he was to wait for the arrival of the king. But the Greek emperor received him coldly; and by artifices induced him to cross the Dardanelles, and proceed towards Palestine. The Grecian guides assigned him, led him into defiles and dangerous positions in Lycaonia, where the Muhammedans attacked and nearly destroyed his army. After the loss of all his baggage, he was obliged to turn back with but a handful of men. The French army proceeded from Metz, crossed the Rhine at Worms, and the Danube at Ratisbon, passed through Hungary, and arrived safely at Constantinople. There they were told the German army had proceeded on, and were very successful against the infidels. Lewis now passed the straits, and was at Nice when Conrad returned with the remnant of his ruined army. The sovereigns continued together for a few days, and commenced their march southerly along the coast. But the emperor thinking it not honourable for him to attend a camp in which he had no command, returned to Constantinople, and afterwards embarked for the holy land. Lewis led his army through Asia Minor, bending his course into the interior to avoid passing the large rivers near their mouths. The Muhammedans hovered around him, cut off his supplies, and at length attacked him in the mountains of Laodicea to great advantage, destroyed a large part of his army, and came near to capturing the king himself. At length he arrived with the wreck of his army at Attalia, the capital of Pamphylia, where the Greeks drained them of their resources, and so embarrassed their proceeding by land, that the king, with part of his troops, was obliged to embark on board the few vessels he could obtain, leaving the remainder of his army to fight their way by land, if they could. Those he thus left, all perished. He and those with him arrived safe in Palestine. The emperor also rejoined him with a few troops. Their united forces formed but a small army; yet they would have been able to reduce Damascus if the christian princes of the East had not disagreed, and thus embarrassed their operations. The siege was abandoned; the sovereigns visited Jerusalem as pilgrims, and at length returned to Europe, with less than a tenth part of the men that had enlisted in the crusade. Tr.] 1187; and in the same year reduced Jerusalem under his power. After this ruinous campaign, the hopes of the christians in the East rested wholly on the aid to be derived from the kings of Europe. And this aid the Roman pontiff obtained for them, after much and repeated solicitations: yet the issue did not equal his designs, or his wishes and efforts. § 11. The third crusade was commenced by the emperor Frederic I., surnamed Barbarossa; who, with a large army of Germans, traversed the provinces of Greece, in the year 1189, and after surmounting numerous difficulties in Asia Minor, and vanquishing the forces of a Muhammedan king resident at Iconium, penetrated into Syria. But the next year, while bathing in the river Saleph, which passes by Seleucia, he lost his life, in a manner unknown; and a great part of his soldiers returned to Europe. The others continued the war, under Frederic, the son of the deceased emperor: but the plague swept off very many of them, and at length, their general, the emperor's son, in the year 1191, when the rest dispersed, and few of them returned to their own country'. very $ 12. The emperor Frederic was followed, in the year 1190, by Philip Augustus, king of France, and Richard, surnamed the Lion-hearted, king of England. Both these went by sea, and reached Palestine, with selected troops, in the year 1191. Their first battle with the enemy was not unsuccessful but in July of that year, after the reduction of the city of Acre, the king of France returned to Europe; leaving, however, a part of his troops in Palestine. After his departure, the king of England prosecuted the war with vigour, and not only vanquished Saladin in several battles, but also took Jaffa and Cesarea, cities of Palestine. But being deserted by the French and Italians, and moved also by other reasons of great weight, he, in the year 1192, concluded a truce with Saladin, for three years, three months, and three days; and soon after left See the Arab Bohadin's Life of Saladin; which Alb. Schultens published in Arabic, with a Latin translation, Lugd. Bat. 1732. fol. c. xxxiv. &c. p. 60, &c. Add Herbelot, Biblioth. Orientale, artic. Salaheddin, p. 742, &c. and Marigny, Histoire des Arabes, tom. iv. p. 289, &c. 7 These events are best illustrated by the celebrated count Henry de Bünau, in his life of Frederic I. written in German, p. 278. 293. 309. 333, &c. |