possessed of the treasures of the East, of which Bagdad, not Jerusalem, was the chief depository. The Crusades which grew out of the love of pilgrimage, were adapted rather to put an end to all beneficial intercourse with those Eastern nations, among whom, in the better days of the Abassides, as well as under some of the Fatimite caliphs, the itinerants both of commerce and of superstition, pursued their errands in safety. It is strange enough that the occupation of Constantinople by the Latins, should be brought forward as a circumstance beneficial to the interests of learning. A free communication had in preceding centuries been maintained between the clergy of the West and those of the East, which was interrupted only by the unhappy influence of ecclesiastical schism; but the Crusades added new fuel to the flames of theological hatred. The Latins were utter strangers to the language of Greece, as were the Greeks to the Latin; nor did the Crusades produce any approximation to a literary intercourse between them. When, in the fifth expedition, the storm of religious and national hatred burst upon the Eastern capital, the barbarian invaders, instead of 'beholding with the awe of classical enthusiasm the marbled and bronzed representations of ancient virtue and genius, destroyed the former, and coined the latter into drachmas.'

The savage conquerors of Constantinople carried, in mock procession, the pens and inkhorns of the vanquished. Even the tomb of the Roman lawgiver was violated, and in the triple fire of the city, the incendiaries were never checked in their savage gratifications by the dread lest the flames should devour some sacred remnant of the learning of Greece or Rome. The Latins, during the half century in which they were lords of the imperial city, did not adopt the letters of the subjugated people. Rigord, in his life of Philip Augustus, tells us that the metaphysics of Aristotle, translated into Latin, were carried to Paris after the sack of Constantinople. I know of no other book that the West received from the East, in consequence of the Latin reign over Greece. The conquerors despised remains of literature; but they were diligent hunters after relics. Superstition received additional food by the sack of Constantinople, and every country of Europe for ages acknowledged its obligations.'

2. The diffusion of oriental imagery over the West, and the supply of new and inexhaustible materials for poetry and romance, are with not much better reason enumerated among the beneficial effects of the Crusades. Warburton and Warton have asserted that, after the holy wars, a new set of champions, conquests, and countries were introduced into romance; and that Soliman, Noureddin, with the cities of Palestine and Egypt, became the favourite topics. Mr. Ritson, a much higher authority, contends that no such change took place; and Mr. Dunlop, whose History of Fiction ought not to have escaped our attention so

Jong, espouses the same opinion. Mezerai, the French historian, is for deriving Romance entirely from the Crusades. Mr. Mills says :

• The circumstance of Musselmans aspiring to the dignity of chivalry, is a subject, indeed, of the Trouveurs, or Poets of the North of France, who flourished from the close of the twelfth to the middle of the fourteenth century. But the wars between the Christians and the infidels in the holy land form no part of their theme. Those Italian novels which constitute much of the basis of the Decameron of Boccaccio are likewise barren of crusading events: but if it be true that many of those novels were drawn from the Fabliaux of the Trouveurs, we cannot expect to find in the copy what does not exist in the original. The bright days of Troubadour song were also coeval with the Crusades.

The Provençal poets sometimes emerged from the mystics of love, to excite the zeal of princes and subjects for the recovery of the holy land. Occasionally and accidentally Palestine was the scene of their romantic passion. As the Crusades were wild and romantic adventures, it might be expected that they would have formed the great topic of popular fiction. But excepting the romance concerning Richard, and another relating to Godfrey, the Crusades are not the subject of the romances of chivalry. The victories of Arthur and Charlemagne were still dwelt upon, though the brilliant achievements of holy warriors were before the writers. The fame of the latter had not transcended the glory of the former. This love of ancient chivalry influence the courts of princes as well as the haunts of poets ; and it was the reputation of Arthur, not that of Godfrey, which Edward III. wished to emulate, and in honour of whorn he kept a round table of knights.'

The hypothesis which attributes to the Crusades the improvement of Western Literature, is manifestly a mere assumption, and it owes all its plausibility to an unfair view of the subject, Before their literary efficacy could be admitted, it ought to be shewn, that whatever supposed accessions to our resources they were instrumental in introducing, would not bave been other. wise obtained through commercial intercourse with the East, through the visits of pilgrims, and especially through the Saracens of Spain and Sicily. After all, when we reflect upon the millions who perished in the crusading wars, upon the imparalleled atrocities wbich marked alike the successes and the reverses of the Latins, and upon all the horrible mischiefs which flowed from a ferocious fanaticism, it would doubtless be highly consolatory to the minil, to think that the Crusades bad some share in furnishing the Troubadour with a theine, or in inspiring the genius of Romance !

3. The influence of the sacred wars upon the spirit of chivalry, is a point to which we have already adverted. Our opinion is, that it was decidedly unfavourable; that the union of religion and arms, or rather, the grafting of fanatical zeal on the military

passion, only tended to change ambition into revenge, and courage into cruelty.

'On the fair part of ancient warfare,' says Mr. Mills, 'the Crusades cast a baleful influence. That tenacious and delicate regard to veracity which was a great characteristic of the true knight, must have lost much of its sensitiveness by the habitual and systematic violations of faith with infidels. A liberal treatment of prisoners was another remarkable point in the chivalric character. So firm was the trust of cavaliers in each other's honour, that it was common for a victorious knight to suffer his captive to return to his own country, in order to collect his ransom. In the days of Richard and Saladin, some lofty and romantic feelings of generosity took from war many of its horrors, and the Turks even aspired to the distinction of Christian knighthood. But on most other occasions, as there was no common tie of religion between the two people, no principle mutually acknowledged, the cavaliers would place no trust in the word of men whom they either hated or despised. In some cases a pure thirst of glory, and a generous love of renown, impelled the European soldiers into the east: but bigotry and cruelty were the general and ruling passions of holy warriors. When, indeed, the knight was errant in Palestine, as the price of female smiles, the full effects of chivalry and of holy wars were similar. But these instances were comparatively rare. The western world precipitated itself into Asia from fanatical, not romantic motives; for purposes of savage destruction, not of that high-minded protection of women which the lawless state of society in Europe rendered necessary, and which was granted in consequence of the deep feelings of veneration with which the German ancestors of the cavaliers had always regarded the opposite sex. Palestine was the land of religion, but not of love. The Crusaders were armed devotees rather than gentle knights. The prize of beauty was not joined with the praise of arms. The soldiers of the cross had all the heroism, but none of the polish, of knight-errantry, and the sword leaped from its scabbard, not for the generous purpose of avenging the looks which threatened beauty with insult; but for the vile and rude office of striking off a Saracen's head. In Europe, they fought for Heaven and the ladies; in Palestine, for Heaven only; and the spirit of military fanaticism was so much stronger than that of military gallantry, that many noble cavaliers, disdaining the soft collar of the gentle affections, aspired to high and austere virtues, and enrolled themselves in those martial fraternities, of which celibacy was the key, in order that the lascivious pleasings of the lute" should be drowned in the roarings of the brazen throat of Paynim war.' Vol. II. pp. 349–352.

The formation of the orders of military friars, tended to introduce a total change in the spirit of chivalry. These self-devoted celibates renounced all social ties, all humanizing relations, and the actual consequence was, that they were distinguished by cruelty, treachery, and licentiousness. The implacable hostility which subsisted between the rival orders, surpassed the usual measure of party or of national hatred. The union, indeed, between the warrior and the devotee, was in itself monstrous : it was

the offspring of Paganism, and its effects corresponded to the character thus generated, that of a savage fanaticism.'

4. Dr. Robertson adverts to the commercial effects of the Crusades; and it may be admitted that trade with the Christian states in Palestine, and the furnishing of transports to the pilgrims, greatly augmented the wealth of the commercial cities of Italy. The capture of Constantinople restored the maritime ascendancy of Venice, but this was soon taken from her by Genoa, by whom also Pisa was subdued; so that the rapid increase of the wealth and power of the former two, and the eventual destruction of the latter, are, as Mr. Mills remarks, the principal circumstances in commercial history which the Crusades were instrumental in producing. Against whatever advantages commerce might derive from the holy expeditions, must be set the impoverishment of whole nations, by the constant drain of population and of money which they occasioned, and the oppressive exactions for which they afforded so convenient a pretext. In the fall of Constantinople, the destruction of property was immense. At the first view', remarks the profound historian so often referred to, it should seem that the wealth of Constan'tinople was only transferred from one nation to another. But in the miserable account of war, the gain is never equivalent to 'the loss, the pleasure to the pain: the smiles of the Latins were transient and fallacious; the Greeks for ever wept over the ' ruins of their country.'

5. In one respect, however, Mr. Gibbon himself is disposed to admit that the accidental operation of the Crusades was beneficial in removing an evil; in breaking the power of the feudal aristocracy, by dissipating the fortunes of the barons, and in some cases extinguishing their race. 'Their poverty extorted from their pride those charters of freedom which unlocked the fetters of the slave, secured the farm of the peasant and the shop of the artificer, and gradually restored a substance and a 'soul to the most numerous and useful part of the community." The increase of the monarchical power and prerogative, in some cases by lapsed fiefs, in others by the purchase or forcible appropriation of territories belonging to absentees, is supposed to have been a simultaneous consequence. In reply to this argument, we again avail ourselves of the judicious reasonings of the present Author.

'It cannot be shown, that the condition of the people was ameliorated, or that the tyranny of the aristocracy was broken by the holy wars. Much blood and treasure were wasted; but in no greater ratio in one class of society than in another, for the epidemic ran through all ranks of people, and potentates and plebeians made consentaneous movements and simultaneous exertions. However calamitous might have been the lot of individuals, yet it does not appear that families were ruined or