Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 6.djvu/703

 GODFREY

625

GODFREY

mood, and closely watched by the Lnperial troops. Warned against the emperor, Godfrey kept away from the imperial palace.

However, during the Christmas festivities, he con- sented to cross the Golden Horn, and went into camp at Pera (29 Dec). The chief desire of Alexius was to prevent the junction of Godfrey's army with that of Bohemond, leader of the Normans of Italy; Alexius had hoped to induce Godfrey to swear fealty to him and then to remove his army to Asia. Throughout the winter Godfrey resisted the imperial demands. At last, 2 April, 1097 (the date given by Anna Com- nena is preferable to 13 January given by Albert of Aix; see Chalandon, "Alexis Comnene", 179), on the approach of Bohemond, the emperor decided to act, and cut off the supplies of the crusaders. Several combats ensued, and, despite the contrarj' assertion of Albert of Aix, Godfrey must have been defeated. Anna Comnena states that he then consented to do homage to the emperor, promising to restore him any former imperial possessions which he might wrest from the infidels. Some days later the Lorraine army was conveyed to Pelekan on the Gulf of Nicomedia, and at the end of .\pril all the leaders of the crusade were reunited. Godfrey appears to have acted as peacemaker, and he induced Raymond IV, of St-Gilles, Count of Toulouse, to swear fealty to the emperor. Far from directing the crusade, he appears to have taken an obscure part in the council of leaders. He took part in the siege of NicEea and the battle of Dorj^a-um (1 July, 1097).

During the crossing of Asia Minor he was seriously wounded while hunting. At the siege of Antioch he consented to obey the orders of Bohemond, and after the capture of the citj^ he had to give up the castle which his followers had taken (July, 1098). On the way to Jerusalem, while others quarrelled, Godfrey marched towards Edessa, where his brother, Baldwin, had just established himself. He returned from this expedi- tion in October, 1098, and before entering Antioch, with only twelve knights, put to flight one hundred and fifty Turks. According to the tradition repeated by Guibert de Nogent (Gesta, VII, 11), he had, with a stroke of the sword, hewn a Turkish horseman ■through the middle so that his body fell in two equal halves. Having returned to Antioch, he took part, together with Robert Courte-Heuse, Duke of Nor- mandy, in the council of arbitration assembled to reconcile Bohemond and Raymond of St-Gilles. After 23 November, 1098, a number of the crusaders left Antioch with Raymond, but Godfrey of Bouillon and Robert, Count of Flanders, began to march on Jerusalem only at the end of February, 1099. After be- sieging Gibel they rejoined the main army before Arka (12 March), were" at Tripoli (13 May), Beirut (19 May), Caesarea (.30 May), and reached Jerusalem on 7 June.

Godfrey and his army took an active part in the siege of the HolvCity. His camp was pitched to the westward. On 15 July, 1099, about nine in the morn- ing, Godfrey and his brother Eustache placed a mov- able tower against the walls and were the first to enter the city. During the ensuing massacre of Mussul- mans, Godfrey, thinking only of his vow, stripped himself of his arms, and, barefooted and in his under- garments, made the round of the ramparts, and then went to pray at the Holy Sepulchre. The crusaders were soon intent on providing a king for the new conquest. Several bishops offered the crown to Ray- mond of St-Gilles, who refused, declaring "that the title of king seemed to him out of place in that city" (Raimond de Aguilers. Histor. Occid. des Crois., Ill, 301). Robert Courte-Heuse being urged declined in like manner. All refused to accept the burden which the new royalty must jjrove. Finally, Gotlfrey, being unanimousl}' elected, accepted " for the love of Christ" (22 July). According to the chronicles of those times, he refused to wear the crown " through VI.— 10

respect for Him who had been crowned in that place with the Crown of Thorns". Indeed, he seems never to have borne the title of king (which only appears under his successor), and to have been content with that of Duke and Advocate oj the Holy Sepulchre.

It may be that he acted in this manner through respect for the clergy, who regarded the new conquest as the property of all Christendom, and some of whom were averse to the election of a king (Raimond de Aguilers, Hist. Occid. Crois., Ill, 29.5). Godfrey seems to have always considered himself the protector of the Church. Not only did he make so many donations that William of Tyre despairs of enu- merating them, not only did he cede a fourth of Jaffa (Joppa), the city of Jerusalem, and the tower of David to the patriarch Daimbert, but he consented, as did Bohemond. to receive investiture from the patriarch (William of Tyre, Historia, IX, XV). Godfrey dis- played great energy in meeting the many difficulties which threatened the new State, but he was destined to succumb to sickness. On 12 August. 1099, having rallied the crusading forces, he gained a victory at Ascalon, thus preserving Palestine from the Egj'ptian invasion.

Assisted by the Pisans, he rebuilt the city of Jaffa, which became a port of arrival for crusaders. He signed a treaty of alliance with the Venetian fleet, agreeing to besiege Acre, but was attacked b}- the plague at ('.Tsarea, 10 June. After a short stay at the hospital which he had founded at Jaffa, he re- turned to Jerusalem, where he died on 18 July, hav- ing named his brother Baldwin as his successor. He was buried in the church of the Holy Sepulchre.

The tomb of Godfrey was destroyed in 1808, but at that time a large sword, said to have been his, was still shown. Legend soon laid claim to him; in the contemporary accounts of the First Crusade (Gesta Francorum, Raimond de Aguilers, Foucher de Char- tres, Anna Comnena, etc.), he is portrayed as the perfect type of a Christian knight. Tall of stature, with pleasing countenance, and with so courteous a manner ''that he seemed more a monk than a knight" (Robert the Jlonk, Hist. Occid. Crois., Ill, 731), in the hour of danger he showed admirable courage. As a zealous Christian, he was among the first to take the cross, accomplished his vow without the slightest deviation, and at great personal cost accepted the defence of the new conquest. Such is Godfrey as he appears in actual history. In the chronicle of Albert of Aix (d. 1120. edit. Hist. Occid. Crois.. IV), the author already exhibits a tendency to put the figure of Godfrey in the foreground and to at- tribute to him, to a certain extent, the direction of the crusade. .-Vlbert of Aix and Guibert de Nogent attri- bute to Godfrey exploits of an epic character (Guibert de Nogent, Gesta. VII, 11). When, in the thirteenth century, Jean d'Ibelin and Philip of Novara edited the "Assises" of Jerusalem, they referred to Godfrey as a law-making king, and attributed to him a code, the "Letters of the Holy Sepulchre", which never existed. Indeed, at that time, and perhaps as early as the twelfth century, Godfrey of Bouillon had become, like Roland and Arthur, a hero of the chan- sons de geste. The trouvcres provided him with a mythical origin, making him a descendant of the legendary "Knight of the ,Swan", whose feats he is made to repeat, and, after relating the events of his childhood, continued his adventures to the taking of Jeru.salem. L'nder Philip Augustus, Graindor of Douai reconstructed the works of a certain Richard the Pilgrim, and composed a complete history of this crusade: (1) "Elioxe", ed. Todd (Baltimore, 1889): (2) "Beatrix", ed. Hippeau (Paris, 1868); (3)"An- tioche", ed. P. Paris (Paris, 1848); (4) "Jerusalem", ed. Hippeau (Paris, 1808); see L. Gaiitier, "Biblio- graphic des chansons de gestes" (Paris, 1897). In the fourteenth century, all these poems were collected