Abbot Guibert argues that all should look narrowly upon Christians who participated, who took pride in this exploit, who delighted at crime, perfidy, and turpitude, because having feasted their eyes on Jerusalem they thought themselves exempt from natural law. But what of Muslims? Were not they themselves responsible? Did not these black souls seethe with hatred toward Christians lighting the lamp of truth? Where is the seed and root of wickedness?
When the Holy City had been purified, bodies set afire, Frankish lords retired to houses they had selected. Jerusalem they quickly learned was filled to abundance with goods of every sort. Embroidered robes, gems, silver and gold coins, oil, grain, wine, more than enough. On the second day they held a public market, again on the third day. So they passed this time in amiable celebration. Pilgrims refreshed themselves, eating what they liked, idling, giving thanks.
It is said that people in Baghdad wept incessantly. These unbelievers follow a calendar of their own devising and in the ninth month, which they call Ramadan, they do not eat or drink from sunrise to sunset. But upon learning how Jerusalem was seized by Christians they violated the feast of Ramadan by swallowing their tears. So it is alleged. The truth of this, I, Jean, do not pretend to know.
Very long ago Charlemagne conquered Jerusalem. When I was a child I learned that twelve peers and eighty thousand Franks accompanied him but did not have to battle enemies along the way. When they got to the Holy City they entered a church and saw a throne prepared for Charlemagne, with twelve thrones for his knights. No more did they seat themselves than a Jew arrived. Mistaking these Franks for Christ and His apostles, the Jew submitted to conversion. Which is to say, Charlemagne may be likened to God’s representative on earth. Anon came word of a very great monarch, Hugh the Strong, king of Constantinople who tilled his fields with a golden plough. The Franks marched off to see for themselves. Hugh greeted them honorably but challenged them to demonstrate their prowess. Because of this insult they raped his daughter and went about destroying his palace. Hugh begged them to leave his country, which they did, having proved themselves superior to Greeks. While in Constantinople they saw astonishing things, gilded birds that sang, statues of men that could move and speak. Yet these were foolish marvels wrought by a decadent race.
Charlemagne might well gaze with pride upon a host of illustrious descendants, not least Duke Godfrey de Bouillon. This great lord was born in the province of Reims at Boulogne-sur-Mer next to the English sea. We are told by a monk of Wast that his mother Ida had been endowed with angelic grace, that she was assiduous in attending church, that she worshipped with extreme and devout humility. Hence we do not wonder if Duke Godfrey remained so long on his knees that mealtime often came and went, obliging those of his entourage to swallow cold food. Yet none spoke ill of him by reason of his perfect nature. Count Eustace, his father, wrought many notable deeds and to this day the mention of Count Eustace evokes favorable memories. He fought with great valor in that year of our Lord 1066 when Normans invaded England. They say he rescued the Conqueror at a moment of desperate peril, when his third horse was slain, therefore we see Count Eustace on the majestic tapestry at Bayeux alongside William.
Thus, by virtue of lofty character and noble lineage, Godfrey de Bouillon was elected to defend and rule the Holy City of Jerusalem. This responsibility he accepted, but declined to wear a crown of gold in the city where Jesus Christ had worn a crown of thorns. The title he chose for himself was Advocate of the Holy Sepulcher.
Very many tales are we told of Godfrey. How at one stroke he cut a Turk neatly in half, so the Muslim steed galloped off with only the legs and hips of its rider clinging to the saddle. Also, narratives speak of a Mahometan lord who arranged a truce in order to visit because he had heard of Godfrey’s matchless strength. He brought into Godfrey’s presence an enormous camel, beseeching him to smite off the creature’s head. They say Godfrey unsheathed his sword and lopped it off as easily as though the camel were a goose. Then the pagan stepped back, amazed, knowing the stories were true. And returning to his own land he proclaimed the mightiness of Godfrey, for he had witnessed it himself.
Now here came anxious Turks riding down out of the mountains of Samaria with bread, figs, wine, raisins and other gifts, seeking Godfrey’s approval. These suppliants found him at rest on a bale of straw in his tent, the earth bare, without carpets. Nor were there guards to protect him from assassins, so they were dumb with astonishment. Why, they asked through interpreters, did a prince who seized a kingdom and caused the Orient to tremble sit thus ingloriously? Why did he not loll among tapestries and silk? Why was he not flattered by attendants? And when Godfrey understood what they were saying he replied that the earth would suffice as a seat for any man since after death it would be his abode forever. Then these misbelievers thought about his words and concluded that he was a man devoid of pride who knew the poverty of his nature. They were filled with admiration. When they departed they said he deserved to be lord of the Franks.
Anon came word of an Egyptian host ten leagues
