Fifth Crusade.-1217-1221. Honorius III. Pope. Three kings, John de Brienne, titular king of Jerusalem, Andrew II. king of Hungary, and Hugh of Lusignan, king of Cyprus, united their forces at St. Jean d'Acre. The king of Hungary was soon recalled by troubles at home; Hugh of Lusignan died; and John de Brienne went to attack Egypt alone. He conquered Damietta, and would have obtained the restitution of Jerusalem but for the obstinacy of the Papal legate, who forbade any truce with the infidels. In 1221 the crusaders, after many reverses, submitted to an humiliating peace; and John of Brienne returning to Europe gave his daughter in marriage to Frederick II. emperor of Germany, who thereby became titular king of Jerusalem.

Fifth Interval.-1221-1228. Nothing remarkable took place in Syria.

Sixth Crusade.-1228-1229. Gregory IX. Pope.

Leader, Frederick II. This emperor had taken the vows of the cross five years before, and though anathematized by the Pope, had failed to fulfil his engagement. At length he set out by invitation of the Sultan Maledin, who yielded Jerusalem to him by treaty without battle. Frederick was desirous to be crowned king of Jerusalem, but no bishop dared anoint an excommunicated prince. Threatened with the loss of his Italian dominions, he returned to Europe.

Sixth Interval.-1229–1248.

Anarchy throughout the East, both among the Christians and Mohammedans. Jerusalem, after being taken successively by several Saracen chiefs, fell into the hands of the Sultan of Egypt.

Seventh Crusade.-1248-1254. Innocent IV. Pope.

Leaders, St. Louis (IX.) and the French princes. The king of France engaged in this crusade in consequence of a vow made during a dangerous illness. Most of the princes of the blood and great vassals accompanied him. He turned his arms first against Egypt and took Damietta in 1250; but his army, surprised by a sudden rising of the Nile, and carried off in great numbers by pestilence, was surrounded by the Mussulmen, and Louis himself with 20,000 of his army was made prisoner. He obtained his liberty, however, by payment of a heavy ransom and the surrender of Damietta. He remained four years in Palestine, repairing the fortifications of the towns which yet remained in the hands of the Christians, (Ptolemais, Jaffa, Sidon, etc.,) and mediating between the Christian and Mohainmedan princes.

Seventh Interval.-1254-1272.

The Mongols, who, under Gengis Khan, had before overrun the greatest part of Asia, now entered Syria under his son, having already destroyed the Califate of Bagdad in 1258. They were

driven from Syria by the sultan of Egypt, Bibars, by whom also Damascus, Tyre, Jaffa, and Antioch were seized.

Eighth Crusade.-1270. Clement IV. Pope.

Leaders, Louis IX.; Charles of Anjou; Edward, prince of England, afterwards Edward I. This expedition was first directed to the coast of Africa; Louis debarked before Tunis and laid siege to that city but the army was cut down by the plague, to which Louis himself and one of his sons fell victims. Charles of Anjou his brother made peace with the Mohammedans and renounced the expedition to the Holy Land. This was the last crusade.

End of the Christian power in Syria.—1270–1291.

There remained now but four places in the possession of the Christians on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean: Tripoli; Tyre; Berytus; and St. Jean d'Acre. These successively yielded to the Saracens, the last in 1291. The various orders of religious knights, sworn to the defence of the Holy Land, withdrew at first to the Island of Cyprus. In 1310, the Hospitallers established themselves at Rhodes; in 1312, the order of the Templars was abolished; in 1300, the Teutonic knights transferred the seat of their order to Courland, where they laid the foundation of a dominion which continued powerful for a long period.-See Des Michels, Hist. du Moyen Age.

LECTURE IX.

OF MONARCHY.

I ENDEAVORED, at our last meeting, to determine the essential and distinctive character of modern society as compared with the primitive state of society in Europe; and I believed I had found it in this fact, that all the elements of the social state, at first numerous and various, were reduced to twothe government on one hand, and the people on the other. Instead of finding, in the capacity of ruling forces and chief agents in history, the clergy, kings, citizens, husbandmen, and serfs, we now find in modern Europe, only two great objects which occupy the historical stage-the government and the nation.

If such is the fact to which European civilization has led, such, also, is the result to which our researches should conduct us. We must see the birth, the growth, the progressive establishment of this great result. We have entered upon the period to which we can trace its origin : it was, as you have seen, between the twelfth and the sixteenth centuries that those slow and hidden operations took place which brought society into this new form, this definite state. We have also considered the first great event which, in my opinion, evidently had a powerful effect in impelling Europe into this road; I mean the crusades.

About the same period, and almost at the very time when the crusades broke out, that institution began to increase, which has perhaps chiefly contributed to the formation of modern society, and to the fusion of all the social elements into two forces, the government and the people. This institution is monarchy.

It is evident that monarchy has played a vast part in the history of European civilization. Of this we may convince ourselves by a single glance. We see the development of

monarchy proceed, for a considerable time, at the same rate as that of society itself: they had a common progression. And not only had they a common progression, but with every step that society made towards its definitive and modern character, monarchy seemed to increase and prosper; so that, when the work was consummated-when there remained, in the great states of Europe, little or no important and decisive influence but that of the government and the public—it was monarchy that became the government.

It was not only in France, where the fact is evident, that this happened, but in most of the countries of Europe. A little sooner or later, and under forms somewhat different, the history of society in England, Spain, and Germany, offers us the same result. In England, for example, it was under the Tudors that the old particular and local elements of English society were dissolved and mingled, and gave way to the system of public authorities; this, also, was the period when monarchy had the greatest influence. It was the same thing in Germany, Spain, and all the great European states.

If we leave Europe, and cast our eyes over the rest of the world, we shall be struck with an analogous fact. Everywhere we shall find monarchy holding a great place, and appearing as the most general and permanent, perhaps, of all institutions; as that which is the most difficult to preclude where it does not exist, and, where it does exist, the most difficult to extirpate. From time immemorial it has had possession of Asia. On the discovery of America, all the great states of that continent were found, with different combinations, under monarchical governments. When we penetrate into the interior of Africa, wherever we meet with nations of any extent, this is the government which prevails. And not only has monarchy penetrated everywhere, but it has accommodated itself to the most various situations, to civilization and barbarism: to the most peaceful manners, as in China, and to those in which a warlike spirit predominates. It has established itself not only in the midst of the system of castes, in countries whose social economy exhibits the most rigorous distinction of ranks, but also in the midst of a system of equality, in countries where society is most remote from every kind of legal and permanent classification. In some places despotic and oppressive; in others favorable to the progress of civilization and even of liberty; it is like a head that may be

placed on many different bodies, a fruit that may grow from many different buds.

In this fact we might discover many important and curious consequences. I shall take only two; the first is, that such a result cannot possibly be the offspring of mere chance, of force or usurpation only; that there must necessarily be, between the nature of monarchy considered as an institution, and the nature either of man as an individual or of human society, a strong and intimate analogy. Force, no doubt, has had its share, both in the origin and progress of the institution; but as often as you meet with a result like this, as often as you see a great event develop itself or recur during a long series of ages, and in the midst of so many different situations, never ascribe it to force. Force performs a great and daily part in human affairs; but it is not the principle which governs their movements: there is always, superior to force, and the part which it performs, a moral cause which governs the general course of events. Force, in the history of society, resembles the body in the history of man. The body assuredly holds a great place in the life of man, but is not the principle of life. Life circulates in it, but does not emanate from it. Such is also the case in human society; whatever part force may play in them, it does not govern them, or exercise a supreme control over their destinies; this is the province of reason, of the moral influences which are hidden under the accidents of force, and regulate the course of society. We may unhesitatingly declare that it was to a cause of this nature, and not to mere force, that monarchy was indebted for its success.

A second fact of almost equal importance is the flexibility of monarchy, and its faculty of modifying itself and adapting itself to a variety of different circumstances. Observe the contrast which it presents; its form reveals unity, permanence, simplicity. It does not exhibit that variety of combinations which are found in other institutions; yet it accommodates itself to the most dissimilar states of society. It becomes evident then that it is susceptible of great diversity, and capable of being attached to many different elements and principles, both in man as an individual and in society.

It is because we have not considered monarchy in all its extent; because we have not, on the one hand, discovered