APPENDIX 525 Of little value is the compilation of Robert the Monk of Reims, who (some- time in the first two decades of the I2th centur-) undertook the task of trans- lating the Gesta into a better Latin style and addJing a notice on the Council of Clermont. It has been shown by S'bel that there is no foundation for the opinion that Robert took part in the Crusade or visited the Holy Land ; had he done so, he would certainly have stated the circumstance in his Prologue. (Sybel, op. cit. p. 44-6.) Of FuLco, who wrote an account in hexameters of the events of the First Crusade up to the siege of Xicaea, we know nothing more than that he was a contemporary and was acquainted with Gilo who continued the work. His account has no historical value ; he used the Gesta, but did not rifle that source in such a wholesale manner as Gilo of Toucj-, his collaborator, who took up the subject at the siege of Xicaea. Gilo, who calls himself : Gilo nomine Parisiensis incola Tuciaci non inficiandus alumnus, was appointed in 1121 bishop of Tusculum, and comjwsed his Libellus de via Hierosolymitana between 1118 and 1121. For the first four Books he used Robert the Monk and Albert of Aachen as well as the Gesta ; for Bks. 5 and 6 he simply paraphra.sed the Gesta. (Cp. Hagenmeyer, op. cit. p. 74-6.) [Com- plete ed. in Migne, P. L. vol. 1.55.] Raditlf of Caen took no part in the Crusade, but he went to Palestine soon afterwards and stood in intimate relations with Tancred. After Tancred's death he determined to write an account of that leader's exploits, Gesta Tancredi in expeditione Hierosolymitana, which he dedicated to Amulf, Patriarch of Jerusa- lem. For aU that concerns Tancred personall}' his statements are of great value, but otherwise he has the jxisition merely of a second-hand writer in regard to the general history of the First Crusade. The importance of his information about the capture of Antioch has been pointed out by S_vbel. Hagenme3-er has made it probable that he used the Gesta. [Ed. in Muratori, Scr. rer. It., vol. 5, p. 285 sqq. ; Recueil, iii. p. 603 sqq. The chronicle of Albert of Aachen contains one of the most remarkable of the narratives of the First Crusade. From this book, says Sybel, we hear the voice not of a single person, but of regiments speaking with a thousand tongues ; we get a picture of western Europe as it was shaken and affected by that ecumenical event. The storj' is told -i'idly, uninterrupted by any reflections on the part of the author ; who is profoundly impressed by the marvellous character of the tale which he has to tell ; has no scruple in reporting incon- sistent statements ; and does not trouble himself much about chronology and topography. But the canon of Aachen, who compiled the work as we have it, in the third decade of the I2th century, is not responsible for the swing of the story. He was little more than the copyist of the history of an unknown writer, who belonged to the Lotharingian crusaders and settled in the kingdom of .Jerusalem after the First Cru.sade. Thus we have, in Albert of Aachen, the history of the Crusade from the Lotharingian side. The unknown author prob- abh' composed his history some time after the events ; Hagenmeyer has shown that he ha.s made use of the Gesta. [The most important contribution to the criticism of Albert is the monograph of Kugler, Albert von Aachen, 1885, which is to be supplemented by Kuhn's article in the Neues Archiv, 12, p. 545 iqq., 1887.] The Hierosoh-mita (or Libellus de expugnatione Hierosohinitana) of Ekke- HARD, of the Benedictine abbej- of Aura near Kissingen, was published in the Amplissina Collectio of 3Iartene and Durand (vol. .5, p. 511 577.), where it might have been consulted by Gibbon, but he does not seem to have known of it. Ekke- hard went overland to Con.stantinople with a company of German pilgrims in 1101, sailed from the Imperial city to .Joppa, remained six weeks in Palestine, and started on his return journey before the year was out. He became abbot
