sessed. Of various parts even of this territory, he had been stripped by his brother William, and that monarch gladly seized the opportunity to offer the small sum of ten thousand marks as a loan upon Normandy. Terribly encumbered with debts and embarrassments, Robert gladly embraced the proposal; William Rufus entered into full possession of Normandy, and the duke, raising men both from his own duchy and England, joined himself to the party of Hugh, and set out for the Holy Land. With him were a number of high nobles; and the fame of his courage brought multitudes to his standard,* who seemed to be attached by natural bonds to other leaders of the crusading force. The French gentlemen who took arms with the brother of their sovereign were as numerous, we are assured, as the leaders who once besieged Troy; but the account of their march through Europe is less clear and distinct than that of the *By some writers it is asserted that Eustace, brother of Godfrey of Bouillon, marched with Robert Duke of Normandy, and not with his own relation. Robert the Monk, however, who accompanied the army of the Crusade, after having attended the Council of Clermont, distinctly declares that Eustace accompanied Godfrey, and his authority is certainly better than either that of Henry of Huntingdon, or the Annals of Waverly. Mills makes a wrong citation in regard to the Annals of Waverly, which only state, at the place cited by him, (Gale and Fill. vol. 3, p. 142) that Eustace Count of Boulogne, returned from the Holy Land at the same time that Robert of Normandy did so. In another place, however, the Annals distinctly assert that Eustace did accompany the Duke of Normandy. very progress of any other body of crusaders, and it is difficult to ascertain whether the forces of all these nobles were ever really united under Hugh of Vermandois, or whether they left France in separate divisions, directing their course by common consent towards Apulia. It is certain, however, that they all followed nearly the same course, visiting Rome-where their passage was marked by the death of the famous Odo Earl of Kentand arriving in the end in the neighbourhood of Bari and Otranto. At Lucca Hugh received from the Pope the standard of St. Peter; but both at Rome and in Apulia a multitude of the crusaders abandoned the enterprise and returned to their homes. On his arrival in Apulia, Hugh of Vermandois * Some authors declare that they were, and Mills distinctly implies the same thing, though Robert the Monk expressly says, "Diverso tempore et itinere transalpinaverunt." Fulcher of Chartres, who accompanied Stephen Count of Blois to the first crusade, and who must have known whether that prince marched under the orders of, and at the same time with Hugh, asserts that the brother of the French King took his departure before any of the rest, and speaks of his march as if it had been totally separate and distinct from that of the party of Robert of Normandy, Stephen of Blois, and the Count of Flanders. It is clear, indeed, from his statement-whatever agree. ment had been entered into between the great French feudatories and the brother of their sovereign, regarding the chief command of the army-that Hugh had preceded the three princes above named through France and Italy, and had even embarked from Bari before they arrived. displayed the arrogance of his disposition by refusing to wait for the multitude of knights and nobles who were hastening forward to accompany him; and determined on embarking at once for the territories of the Greek emperor; with merely the forces he had led to Bari, he sent an arrogant letter to Alexius Comnenus, and dispatched twenty-four knights in golden armour, to require that magnificent preparations should be made for his reception at Durazzo, in his quality of standardbearer to the Pope. Although this display of vanity, and the gross error into which it led Hugh-who forgot that the Greeks looked upon the Pope not only as merely bishop of Rome, but as somewhat schismatic and heretical withal-was very consistent with the character of his nation, yet we must recollect that the account is given by an enemy, and moreover by one whose imagination was wonderfully party-spirited, namely, the princess Anna Comnena. Embarking at Bari, with a small train, which was terribly diminished by a tempest during the voyage, Hugh arrived at Durazzo, in so destitute a condition, that the governor, who it would appear was aware of the apprehensions and views of Alexius, ventured to place the brother of the King of France in a state of honourable captivity, and after detaining him for some time at the port where he landed, sent him on to Constantinople as a prisoner.* It is more than probable that the after treatment of the French king's brother varied from time to time, with the sudden changes which appeared throughout the whole conduct of Alexius during this part of his reign. The demeanour of the Greek emperor, however, as we have now ample evidence to prove, was not dictated by caprice, but was the result of low cunning and wily policy. Apprehension was the first motive. His empire was weak, and utterly incapable of resisting the efforts or curbing the encroachments of the crusaders, should their * Anna Comnena, in the Alexiad, has very naturally glossed over the conduct of her father in all these treacherous proceedings; and Mills, adopting her account with inconceivable credulity or prejudice, has given a false colouring to the whole transaction between Alexius and Hugh of Vermandois. Every contemporary historian of the crusade, except that princess, distinctly asserts that Hugh of Vermandois was strictly confined as a prisoner-some say in chains—when Godfrey arrived at Philippopoli, and that the Duke sent to demand his instant release, being so indignant at the state in which he was kept, that though renowned for his moderation and humanity, he gave up the territories of Alexius to be ravaged for several days; yet in the face of Albert of Aix, Robert the Monk, Guibert de Nogent, and the honest and straightforward William of Tyre, who as well as Albert, distinctly affirms that Hugh was loaded with chains. The following is the account which Mills gives:-" During his stay Hugh felt not his captivity, for as few of his old companions had reached him, he expressed no desire to depart. But he was soon removed to Constantinople, and Alexius, by flattery and presents, so completely won his affections, that he obtained from him an acknowledgment of fidelity." His indignation be turned against him, or their cupidity excited by the sight of his wealth and the fertility of his dominions. He had thus great cause to fear the entrance of large masses of armed men into his territories; although he himself, by his applications for assistance, when threatened by the bands of the Seljukian Turks, had caused the living inundation to roll in upon the empire. Alexius was one of those who had hitherto succeeded in making the union of fraud and violence assume the appearance and perform some of the functions of vigour. character is shortly summed up by the Archbishop of Tyre, and his history sketched out in a few true and striking words. "At that time," says William, "the Greek empire was governed by a wicked and cunning man, Alexius by name, and Comnenus by surname, who had been formerly highly honoured in the imperial palace by Nicephorus, commonly called Botoniates, who then held the sceptre. He had exercised the office of mega-domestici, which we are accustomed to call 'grand seneschal, next to the Emperor; but raising himself up basely and wickedly against his lord and benefactor, some five or six years before our people arrived, he took possession of the empire, after having deposed his sovereign, and dared to retain what he violently acquired." Alexius had applied for aid, neither expecting nor wishing probably more than the assistance of |