![CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
© 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
No claim to original U.S. Government works
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
International Standard Book Number: 978-0-8493-7391-6 (Hardback)
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts
have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume
responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers
have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to
copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has
not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint.
Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmit-
ted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without written permission from the publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.
com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood
Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and
registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC,
a separate system of payment has been arranged.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used
only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Advances in the neuroscience of addiction / editors, Cynthia M. Kuhn, George F. Koob.
p. ; cm. -- (Frontiers in neuroscience)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-8493-7391-6 (hardcover : alk. paper)
1. Substance abuse--Physiological aspects. 2. Neurosciences. I. Kuhn, Cynthia. II.
Koob, George F. III. Series: Frontiers in neuroscience (Boca Raton, Fla.)
[DNLM: 1. Substance-Related Disorders--metabolism. 2. Behavior,
Addictive--metabolism. 3. Research. WM 270 A2435 2010]
RC564.A327 2010
616.86--dc22 2009039060
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
and the CRC Press Web site at
http://www.crcpress.com
© 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20968-250415070335-29c7c6f6/85/Advances-in-the-Neuroscience-of-Addiction-Frontiers-in-Neuroscience-1st-Edition-Cynthia-M-Kuhn-13-320.jpg)
![Peter remonstrated that he was poor and of no account; and then he
saw that the apostle’s companion was none other than the Blessed
Lord himself, and the humble monk was privileged to fall and kiss
His feet.
We are not of those who believe that men are found so base as to
contrive a story of this kind. There is little doubt in our minds that
this poor Peter, starving as he was, full of fervour and enthusiasm,
dreamed his dream, not once but twice, and went at last, brimful of
pious gratitude, to Adhémar with his tale. Adhémar heard him with
incredulity and coldness. But Raymond saw in this incident a means
which might be turned to good account. He sent twelve men to the
church, and from morning till night they dug in vain. But at length
Peter himself, leaping into the hole they had made, called aloud on
God to redeem his promise, and produced a rusty spear-head.
Adhémar acquiesced with the best grace in his power; the lance was
exhibited to the people the next morning, and the enthusiasm of the
army, famished, and ragged, and dismounted, once more beat as
high as when they sewed the red Cross badge upon their shoulders,
and shouted “Dieu le veut.”
They had been besieged three weeks; all their horses, except
three hundred, were killed. Their ranks were grievously thinned, but
they went out to meet the enemy with such confidence that the only
orders given related to the distribution of the plunder. As they took
their places in the plain, Adhémar raised their spirits by the
announcement of another miracle. Saint George, Saint Maurice, and
Saint Demetrius, had themselves been distinctly seen to join the
army, and were in their midst. The Christians fought as only religious
enthusiasts can fight—as the Mohammedans fought when the Caliph
Omar led his conquering bands northwards, with the delights of
heaven for those who fell, and the joys of earth for those who
survived. The Turks were routed with enormous slaughter. Their
camp, rich and luxurious, fell into the hands of the conquerors;[50]
plenty took the place of starvation; the common soldiers amused
themselves with decking their persons with the silken robes they
found in the huts; the cattle were driven to the town in long](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20968-250415070335-29c7c6f6/85/Advances-in-the-Neuroscience-of-Addiction-Frontiers-in-Neuroscience-1st-Edition-Cynthia-M-Kuhn-29-320.jpg)
![still at Antioch. It came up in April, and the army of the Crusaders,
united again, were ready to resume their march when they were
interrupted by more disputes. In an ill-timed hour, Bohemond, the
incredulous Norman, accused Raymond of conniving with Peter to
deceive the army by palming off upon them an old rusty lance-head
as the sacred spear which had pierced the side of the Lord. Arnold,
chaplain to Duke Robert of Normandy, was brought forward to
support the charge. He rested his argument chiefly on the fact that
Adhémar had disbelieved the miracle: but he contended as well that
the spear-head could not possibly be in Antioch. He was confuted in
the manner customary to the time. One bold monk swore that
Adhémar, after death, for his contumacy in refusing to believe in the
miracle, had been punished by having one side of his beard burned
in the flames of hell, and was not permitted a full enjoyment of
heaven till the beard should grow again. Another quoted a prophecy
of Saint Peter, alleged to be in a Syrian gospel, that the invention of
the lance was to be a sign of the deliverance of the Christians; a
third had spoken personally with Saint Mark himself; while the Virgin
Mary had appeared by night to a fourth to corroborate the story.
Arnold pretended to give way before testimony so overwhelming,
and was ready to retract his opinion publicly, when Peter, crazed with
enthusiasm, offered to submit his case to the ordeal of fire. This
method was too congenial to the fierce and eager spirits of the
Crusaders to be refused. Raymond d’Agiles, who was a witness, thus
tells the story.
“Peter’s proposition appeared to us reasonable, and after enjoining
a fast on Peter, we agreed to kindle the fire on Good Friday itself.
“On the day appointed, the pile was prepared after noon; the
princes and the people assembled to the number of forty thousand;
the priests coming barefooted and dressed in their sacerdotal robes.
The pile was made with dry branches of olive-trees, fourteen feet
long, and four feet high, divided into two heaps, with a narrow path,
a foot wide, between each. As soon as the wood began to burn, I
myself, Raymond,[51]
pronounced these words, ‘If the Lord himself
has spoken to this man face to face, and if Saint Andrew has shown
him the lance of the Lord, let him pass through the fire without](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20968-250415070335-29c7c6f6/85/Advances-in-the-Neuroscience-of-Addiction-Frontiers-in-Neuroscience-1st-Edition-Cynthia-M-Kuhn-31-320.jpg)
![‘the Lord appeared to me in the midst of the flames, and taking me
by the hand, said, ‘Since thou hast doubted of the holy lance, which
the blessed Andrew showed to thee, thou shalt not go out from this
sound and safe. Nevertheless, thou shalt not see hell.’ After these
words He sent me on. ‘See now the marks of fire on my body.’ And,
in fact, there were certain burnings in the legs, small in number,
though the wounds were great.”
Peter Bartholomew died the day after—of the fire, said Bohemond,
the doubter, who continued in his disbelief, in spite of the ordeal; of
the injuries he had received in the crowd, said Raymond of Toulouse.
But the authority of the lance was established, and it was to do good
service in the battles to come. The faith of the Crusaders was kept
up by many other visions and miracles. One that had the greatest
effect was a vision seen by Anselm. To him appeared by night
Angelram, the young son of the Count of Saint Paul, who had been
killed at Marra. “Know,” said the phantom, “that those who fight for
Christ die not.” “And whence this glory that surrounds you?” Then
Angelram showed in the heavens a palace of crystal and diamonds.
“It is there,” he said, “that I have borrowed my splendour. There is
my dwelling-place. One finer still is preparing for you, into which you
will soon enter.” The next day Anselm, after telling of this apparition,
confessed and received the sacraments, though full of health, and
going into battle, was struck by a stone in the forehead, and died
immediately.
On their way to Tripoli,[52]
where they first saw the sugar-cane, the
impatience of the soldiers manifested itself so strongly that the
chiefs could not venture to sit down before the place, but pushed
on, after making a sort of treaty with its governor. Here messengers
arrived from Alexis, entreating them to wait for him, and promising
to bring an army in July. But the time was gone by for negotiation
and delay, and taking the sea-shore route, by which they ensured
the protection of the fleet, they marched southwards to Beirout.
Sidon, and Tyre, and Acre, were passed without much opposition,
and the Crusaders arrived at Cæsarea, which is within sixty miles of
Jerusalem. By marches quick rather than forced, for the enthusiasm
of the army was once more at its height, they reached Lydda, where](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20968-250415070335-29c7c6f6/85/Advances-in-the-Neuroscience-of-Addiction-Frontiers-in-Neuroscience-1st-Edition-Cynthia-M-Kuhn-33-320.jpg)
![At break of day on Thursday, July 14th, 1099, the attack began.
The towers were moved against the walls, the mangonels hurled
their stones into the city, and the battering-rams were brought into
play. All day long the attack was carried on, but to little effect, and
at nightfall, when the Crusaders returned to their camp, the tower of
Raymond was in ruins; those of Tancred and Godfrey were so
damaged that they could not be moved; and the princes were seen
beating their hands in despair, and crying that God had abandoned
them. “Miserable men that we are!” cried Robert of Normandy; “God
judges us unworthy to enter into the Holy City, and worship at the
tomb of His Son.”
The next day was Friday, the day of the Crucifixion. At daybreak
the battle began again. It went well for the Crusaders; the wall was
broken in many places, and the besieged with all their endeavours
could not set fire to the towers. In the middle of the day they
brought out two magicians—witches, it is said, though one hardly
believes it. They made their incantations on the walls, attended by
their maidens.[53]
These were all destroyed at once by stones from
the mangonels. But the day went on, and the final assault could not
be delivered for the courage and ferocity of the Saracens. And then,
the usual miracle happened. Godfrey and Raymond, shouting that
heaven had come to their rescue, pointed to the Mount of Olives,
where stood a man, “miles splendidus et refulgens,” one clothed in
bright and glittering armour, waving his shield as a signal for the
advance. Who could it be but Saint George himself? In the midst of
a shower of arrows, Greek fire, and stones, the tower of Godfrey
was pushed against the wall; the drawbridge fell; Godfrey himself
was among the first to leap upon the wall. And then the rumour ran,
that not only Saint George, but Bishop Adhémar—dead Bishop
Adhémar himself—was in the ranks, and fighting against the Infidel.
The supreme moment was arrived! A whisper went through the
troops that it was now three o’clock; the time, as well as the day,
when our Lord died, on the very spot where they were fighting. Even
the women and children joined in the attack, and mingled their cries
with the shouts of the soldiers. The Saracens gave way, and
Jerusalem was taken.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20968-250415070335-29c7c6f6/85/Advances-in-the-Neuroscience-of-Addiction-Frontiers-in-Neuroscience-1st-Edition-Cynthia-M-Kuhn-40-320.jpg)
![53. Robert of Normandy might have remembered that a similar plan had been
adopted by his father against Hereward in Ely.
The city was taken, and the massacre of its defenders began. The
Christians ran through the streets, slaughtering as they went. At first
they spared none, neither man, woman, nor child, putting all alike to
the sword; but when resistance had ceased, and rage was partly
appeased, they began to bethink them of pillage, and tortured those
who remained alive to make them discover their gold. As for the
Jews within the city, they had fled to their synagogue, which the
Christians set on fire, and so burned them all. The chroniclers relate
with savage joy, how the streets were encumbered with heads and
mangled bodies, and how in the Haram Area, the sacred enclosure
of the Temple, the knights rode in blood up to the knees of their
horses. Here upwards of ten thousand were slaughtered, while the
whole number of killed amounted, according to various estimates, to
forty, seventy, and even a hundred thousand. An Arabic historian,
not to be outdone in miracles by the Christians, reports that at the
moment when the city fell, a sudden eclipse took place, and the
stars appeared in the day. Fugitives brought the news to Damascus
and Baghdad. It was then the month of Ramadan, but the general
trouble was such that the very fast was neglected. No greater
misfortune, except, perhaps, the loss of Mecca, could have
happened to Islamism. The people went in masses to the mosques;
the poets made their verses of lamentation: “We have mingled our
blood with our tears. No refuge remains against the woes that
overpower us.... How can ye close your eyes, children of Islam, in
the midst of troubles which would rouse the deepest sleeper? Will
the chiefs of the Arabs resign themselves to such evils? and will the
warriors of Persia submit to such disgrace? Would to God, since they
will not fight for their religion, that they would fight for the safety of
their neighbours! And if they give up the rewards of heaven, will
they not be induced to fight by the hope of booty?”[54]
54. From a poem by Mozaffer el Abiwardí.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20968-250415070335-29c7c6f6/85/Advances-in-the-Neuroscience-of-Addiction-Frontiers-in-Neuroscience-1st-Edition-Cynthia-M-Kuhn-41-320.jpg)
![Marne. Robert of Normandy, to eat out his heart in Cardiff Castle.
Bohemond, Tancred, and Baldwin, with Raymond, remained in the
East.
The miserably small army left with King Godfrey would have ill-
sufficed to defend the city, had it not been for the continual relays of
pilgrims who arrived daily. These could all, at a pinch, be turned into
fighting men, and when their pilgrimage was finished there were
many who would remain and enter permanently into the service of
the king. And this seems to have been the principal way in which the
army was recruited. It was nearly always engaged in fighting or
making ready for fighting, and without constant reinforcements must
speedily have come to an end. A great many Christians settled in the
country by degrees, and, marrying either with native Christians or
others, produced a race of semi-Asiatics, called pullani,[55]
who seem
to have united the vices of both sides of their descent, and to have
inherited none of the virtues.
55. Perhaps fulání, anybodies. So in modern Arabic the greatest insult you can
offer a man is to call him, fulán ibn fulán, so and so, the son of so and so—i.e., a
foundling or bastard.
As for the people—not the Saracens, who, it must be
remembered, were always the conquerors, but not always the
settlers—we have little information about them. The hand of the
Arab was against every man, and every man’s against his. When the
pilgrims, it will be remembered, killed the sheikh at Ramleh, the Emir
expressed his gratitude at being rid of his worst enemy. But, as to
the villagers, the people who tilled the ground, the occupants of the
soil, we know nothing of what race they were. It was four hundred
years since the country had ceased to be Christian—it is hardly to be
expected that the villagers were anything but Mohammedan. William
of Tyre expressly calls them infidels, or Saracens, and they were
certainly hostile. No Christian could travel across the country unless
as one of a formidable party; and the labourers refused to cultivate
the ground, in hopes of starving the Christians out: even in the
towns, the walls were all so ruinous, and the defenders so few, that
thieves and murderers entered by night, and no one lay down to](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20968-250415070335-29c7c6f6/85/Advances-in-the-Neuroscience-of-Addiction-Frontiers-in-Neuroscience-1st-Edition-Cynthia-M-Kuhn-52-320.jpg)
More Related Content
Similar to Advances in the Neuroscience of Addiction Frontiers in Neuroscience 1st Edition Cynthia M. Kuhn (20)
Advances in the Neuroscience of Addiction Frontiers in Neuroscience 1st Edition Cynthia M. Kuhn
- 1. Advances in the Neuroscience of Addiction Frontiers in Neuroscience 1st Edition Cynthia M. Kuhn pdf download https://ebookfinal.com/download/advances-in-the-neuroscience-of- addiction-frontiers-in-neuroscience-1st-edition-cynthia-m-kuhn/ Explore and download more ebooks or textbooks at ebookfinal.com
- 2. Here are some recommended products for you. Click the link to download, or explore more at ebookfinal Methods in Genomic Neuroscience Frontiers in Neuroscience 1st Edition Hemin R. Chin https://ebookfinal.com/download/methods-in-genomic-neuroscience- frontiers-in-neuroscience-1st-edition-hemin-r-chin/ Methods of Behavior Analysis in Neuroscience Second Edition Frontiers in Neuroscience Jerry J. Buccafusco https://ebookfinal.com/download/methods-of-behavior-analysis-in- neuroscience-second-edition-frontiers-in-neuroscience-jerry-j- buccafusco/ The Neural Bases of Multisensory Processes Frontiers in Neuroscience 1st Edition Micah M. Murray https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-neural-bases-of-multisensory- processes-frontiers-in-neuroscience-1st-edition-micah-m-murray/ Methods in Alcohol Related Neuroscience Research Methods and New Frontiers in Neuroscience 1st Edition Yuan Liu https://ebookfinal.com/download/methods-in-alcohol-related- neuroscience-research-methods-and-new-frontiers-in-neuroscience-1st- edition-yuan-liu/
- 3. Clinical Trials in the Neurosciences Frontiers of Neurology and Neuroscience 1st Edition K. M. Woodbury- Harris https://ebookfinal.com/download/clinical-trials-in-the-neurosciences- frontiers-of-neurology-and-neuroscience-1st-edition-k-m-woodbury- harris/ New Concepts in Cerebral Ischemia Frontiers in Neuroscience 1st Edition Rick C. S. Lin https://ebookfinal.com/download/new-concepts-in-cerebral-ischemia- frontiers-in-neuroscience-1st-edition-rick-c-s-lin/ The Wiley Handbook on the Cognitive Neuroscience of Addiction 1st Edition Stephen J. Wilson https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-wiley-handbook-on-the-cognitive- neuroscience-of-addiction-1st-edition-stephen-j-wilson/ Translational Pain Research From Mouse to Man Frontiers in Neuroscience 1st Edition Lawrence Kruger https://ebookfinal.com/download/translational-pain-research-from- mouse-to-man-frontiers-in-neuroscience-1st-edition-lawrence-kruger/ Neurological Disorders in Famous Artists Frontiers of Neurology and Neuroscience Part 2 1st Edition J. Bogousslavsky https://ebookfinal.com/download/neurological-disorders-in-famous- artists-frontiers-of-neurology-and-neuroscience-part-2-1st-edition-j- bogousslavsky/
- 5. Advances in the Neuroscience of Addiction Frontiers in Neuroscience 1st Edition Cynthia M. Kuhn Digital Instant Download Author(s): Cynthia M. Kuhn, George F. Koob ISBN(s): 9780849373916, 0849373913 Edition: 1 File Details: PDF, 15.62 MB Year: 2010 Language: english
- 7. ADVANCES in the NEUROSCIENCE of ADDICTION © 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
- 8. FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE Series Editors Sidney A. Simon, Ph.D. Miguel A.L. Nicolelis, M.D., Ph.D. Published Titles Apoptosis in Neurobiology Yusuf A. Hannun, M.D., Professor of Biomedical Research and Chairman, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina Rose-Mary Boustany, M.D., tenured Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Neurobiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina Neural Prostheses for Restoration of Sensory and Motor Function John K. Chapin, Ph.D., Professor of Physiology and Pharmacology, State University of New York Health Science Center, Brooklyn, New York Karen A. Moxon, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, School of Biomedical Engineering, Science, and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Computational Neuroscience: Realistic Modeling for Experimentalists Eric DeSchutter, M.D., Ph.D., Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium Methods in Pain Research Lawrence Kruger, Ph.D., Professor of Neurobiology (Emeritus), UCLA School of Medicine and Brain Research Institute, Los Angeles, California Motor Neurobiology of the Spinal Cord Timothy C. Cope, Ph.D., Professor of Physiology, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio Nicotinic Receptors in the Nervous System Edward D. Levin, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Pharmacology and Molecular Cancer Biology and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina Methods in Genomic Neuroscience Helmin R. Chin, Ph.D., Genetics Research Branch, NIMH, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland Steven O. Moldin, Ph.D., University of Southern California, Washington, D.C. Methods in Chemosensory Research Sidney A. Simon, Ph.D., Professor of Neurobiology, Biomedical Engineering, and Anesthesiology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina Miguel A.L. Nicolelis, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Neurobiology and Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina The Somatosensory System: Deciphering the Brain’s Own Body Image Randall J. Nelson, Ph.D., Professor of Anatomy and Neurobiology, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Memphis, Tennessee © 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
- 9. The Superior Colliculus: New Approaches for Studying Sensorimotor Integration William C. Hall, Ph.D., Department of Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina Adonis Moschovakis, Ph.D., Department of Basic Sciences, University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece New Concepts in Cerebral Ischemia Rick C.S. Lin, Ph.D., Professor of Anatomy, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi DNA Arrays: Technologies and Experimental Strategies Elena Grigorenko, Ph.D., Technology Development Group, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Cambridge, Massachusetts Methods for Alcohol-Related Neuroscience Research Yuan Liu, Ph.D., National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland David M. Lovinger, Ph.D., Laboratory of Integrative Neuroscience, NIAAA, Nashville, Tennessee Primate Audition: Behavior and Neurobiology Asif A. Ghazanfar, Ph.D., Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey Methods in Drug Abuse Research: Cellular and Circuit Level Analyses Barry D. Waterhouse, Ph.D., MCP-Hahnemann University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Functional and Neural Mechanisms of Interval Timing Warren H. Meck, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina Biomedical Imaging in Experimental Neuroscience Nick Van Bruggen, Ph.D., Department of Neuroscience Genentech, Inc. Timothy P.L. Roberts, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of Toronto, Canada The Primate Visual System John H. Kaas, Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University Christine Collins, Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee Neurosteroid Effects in the Central Nervous System Sheryl S. Smith, Ph.D., Department of Physiology, SUNY Health Science Center, Brooklyn, New York Modern Neurosurgery: Clinical Translation of Neuroscience Advances Dennis A. Turner, Department of Surgery, Division of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina Sleep: Circuits and Functions Pierre-Hervé Luppi, Université Claude Bernard Lyon, France Methods in Insect Sensory Neuroscience Thomas A. Christensen, Arizona Research Laboratories, Division of Neurobiology, University of Arizona, Tuscon, Arizona Motor Cortex in Voluntary Movements Alexa Riehle, INCM-CNRS, Marseille, France Eilon Vaadia, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel © 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
- 10. Neural Plasticity in Adult Somatic Sensory-Motor Systems Ford F. Ebner, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee Advances in Vagal Afferent Neurobiology Bradley J. Undem, Johns Hopkins Asthma Center, Baltimore, Maryland Daniel Weinreich, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland The Dynamic Synapse: Molecular Methods in Ionotropic Receptor Biology Josef T. Kittler, University College, London, England Stephen J. Moss, University College, London, England Animal Models of Cognitive Impairment Edward D. Levin, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina Jerry J. Buccafusco, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, Georgia The Role of the Nucleus of the Solitary Tract in Gustatory Processing Robert M. Bradley, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan Brain Aging: Models, Methods, and Mechanisms David R. Riddle, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina Neural Plasticity and Memory: From Genes to Brain Imaging Frederico Bermudez-Rattoni, National University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico Serotonin Receptors in Neurobiology Amitabha Chattopadhyay, Center for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, India TRP Ion Channel Function in Sensory Transduction and Cellular Signaling Cascades Wolfgang B. Liedtke, M.D., Ph.D., Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina Stefan Heller, Ph.D., Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California Methods for Neural Ensemble Recordings, Second Edition Miguel A.L. Nicolelis, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Neurobiology and Biomedical Engineering, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina Biology of the NMDA Receptor Antonius M. VanDongen, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina Methods of Behavioral Analysis in Neuroscience Jerry J. Buccafusco, Ph.D., Alzheimer’s Research Center, Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Professor of Psychiatry and Health Behavior, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, Georgia In Vivo Optical Imaging of Brain Function, Second Edition Ron Frostig, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Neurobiology, University of California, Irvine, California Fat Detection: Taste, Texture, and Post Ingestive Effects Jean-Pierre Montmayeur, Ph.D., Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Dijon, France Johannes le Coutre, Ph.D., Nestlé Research Center, Lausanne, Switzerland © 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
- 11. The Neurobiology of Olfaction Anna Menini, Ph.D., Neurobiology Sector International School for Advanced Studies,(S.I.S.S.A.), Trieste, Italy Neuroproteomics Oscar Alzate, Ph.D., Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina Translational Pain Research: From Mouse to Man Lawrence Kruger, Ph.D., Department of Neurobiology, UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California Alan R. Light, Ph.D., Department of Anesthesiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah Advances in the Neuroscience of Addiction Cynthia M. Kuhn, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA George F. Koob, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California, USA © 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
- 12. CRC Press is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Boca Raton London New York Edited by Cynthia M. Kuhn Duke University Medical Center North Carolina George F. Koob Scripps Research Institute California ADVANCES in the NEUROSCIENCE of ADDICTION © 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
- 13. CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group 6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742 © 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business No claim to original U.S. Government works Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 International Standard Book Number: 978-0-8493-7391-6 (Hardback) This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint. Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmit- ted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers. For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright. com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Advances in the neuroscience of addiction / editors, Cynthia M. Kuhn, George F. Koob. p. ; cm. -- (Frontiers in neuroscience) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8493-7391-6 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Substance abuse--Physiological aspects. 2. Neurosciences. I. Kuhn, Cynthia. II. Koob, George F. III. Series: Frontiers in neuroscience (Boca Raton, Fla.) [DNLM: 1. Substance-Related Disorders--metabolism. 2. Behavior, Addictive--metabolism. 3. Research. WM 270 A2435 2010] RC564.A327 2010 616.86--dc22 2009039060 Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at http://www.taylorandfrancis.com and the CRC Press Web site at http://www.crcpress.com © 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
- 14. ix Contents Series Preface............................................................................................................xi The Editors............................................................................................................. xiii Contributors .............................................................................................................xv 1 Chapter Advances in Animal Models of Relapse for Addiction Research........1 Friedbert Weiss 2 Chapter Application of Chronic Extracellular Recording Method to Studies of Cocaine Self-Administration: Method and Progress ........27 Laura L. Peoples, Alexai V. Kravitz, and Karine Guillem 3 Chapter Neurochemistry of Addiction: Monitoring Essential Neurotransmitters of Addiction..........................................................99 Stefan G. Sandberg and Paul A. Garris 4 Chapter Alcohol Craving and Relapse Prediction: Imaging Studies............. 137 Andreas Heinz, Anne Beck, Jan Mir, Sabine M. Grüsser, Anthony A. Grace, and Jana Wrase 5 Chapter Integrating Behavioral and Molecular Approaches in Mouse: Self-Administration Studies............................................................. 163 Danielle L. Graham and David W. Self 6 Chapter Neuroeconomics: Implications for Understanding the Neurobiology of Addiction............................................................... 193 Michael L. Platt, Karli K. Watson, Benjamin Y. Hayden, Stephen V. Shepherd, and Jeffrey T. Klein Index...................................................................................................................... 217 © 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
- 15. xi Series Preface Our goal in creating the Frontiers in Neuroscience Series is to present the insights of experts on emerging fields and theoretical concepts that are, or will be, in the vanguard of neuroscience. Books in the series cover genetics, ion channels, apoptosis, electrodes, neural ensemble recordings in behaving animals, and even robotics. The series also covers new and exciting multidisciplinary areas of brain research, such as computational neuroscience and neuroengineering, and describes breakthroughs in classical fields like behavioral neuroscience. We hope every neuroscientist will use these books in order to get acquainted with new ideas and frontiers in brain research. These books can be given to graduate students and postdoctoral fellows when they are looking for guidance to start a new line of research. Each book is edited by an expert and consists of chapters written by the leaders in a particular field. Books are richly illustrated and contain comprehensive bibliog- raphies. Chapters provide substantial background material relevant to the particular subject. We hope that as the volumes become available, the effort put in by us, the publisher, the book editors, and individual authors will contribute to the further development of brain research. The extent to which we achieve this goal will be determined by the utility of these books. Sidney A. Simon, Ph.D. Miguel A.L. Nicolelis, M.D., Ph.D. Series Editors © 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
- 16. xiii The Editors Cynthia Kuhn, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology at Duke University Medical Center. She earned her B.A. in biology at Stanford University and her Ph.D. in pharmacology at Duke. She has been a fac- ulty member at Duke since 1978. She has studied the effect of addictive drugs on the developing brain, and the interaction of hormonal state and the effects of addic- tive drugs throughout her career. Dr. Kuhn’s work has identified the contribution of enhanced dopaminergic function to the addiction risk for adolescents and females. She has received continuous funding from the National Institute of Drug Abuse to study the effects of cocaine on women and adolescent animals and has published more than 250 scientific papers. She has trained 7 predoctoral, 10 postdoctoral, and more than 50 undergraduate students. In addition to her research activities, Dr. Kuhn is extremely active in teaching for both professional and lay audiences. She has taught pharmacology (drug abuse, endocrinology) in the medical school curriculum for 25 years and teaches an under- graduate course at Duke entitled “Drugs and the Brain.” She is a member of the Translational Prevention Research Center at Duke and is active nationally in drug abuse education for students, teachers, prevention specialists and treatment providers. She has coauthored three books for the lay public: Buzzed: The Straight Facts About the Most Used and Abused Drugs From Alcohol to Ecstasy (Norton, 2008), Just Say Know: Talking with Kids about Drugs and Alcohol (Norton, 2002), and Pumped: Straight Facts for Athletes About Drugs, Supplements and Training (Norton, 2000). She lectures to lay audiences including parents, students, church groups and others. George F. Koob, Ph.D., is a professor and chair of the Committee on the Neuro biol ogy of Addictive Disorders at The Scripps Research Institute, adjunct professor in the DepartmentsofPsychologyandPsychiatry,andadjunctprofessorintheSkaggsSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Koob received his bachelor of science degree from Pennsylvania State University and his Ph.D. in Behavioral Physiology from The Johns Hopkins University. An authority on addiction and stress, Dr. Koob has published over 670 scientific papers and has received continuous funding for his research from the National Institutes of Health, including the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). He is director of the NIAAA Alcohol Research Center at The Scripps Research Institute, consortium coordina- tor for NIAAA’s multi-center Integrative Neuroscience Initiative on Alcoholism, and co-director of the Pearson Center for Alcoholism and Addiction Research. He has trained 10 predoctoral and 64 postdoctoral fellows. Dr. Koob is editor-in-chief USA for the journal Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior and editor-in-chief for the Journal of Addiction Medicine. He won the Daniel Efron Award for excel- lence in research from the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, was © 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
- 17. xiv The Editors honored as a Highly Cited Researcher from the Institute for Scientific Information, was presented with the Distinguished Investigator Award from the Research Society on Alcoholism, and won the Mark Keller Award from NIAAA. He published a landmark book in 2006 with his colleague Dr. Michel Le Moal, Neurobiology of Addiction (Academic Press-Elsevier, Amsterdam). Dr. Koob’s research interests have been directed at the neurobiology of emotion, with a focus on the theoretical constructs of reward and stress. He has made contribu- tions to our understanding of the anatomical connections of the emotional systems and the neurochemistry of emotional function. Dr. Koob has identified afferent and effer- ent connections of the basal forebrain (extended amygdala) in the region of the nucleus accumbens, bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, and central nucleus of the amygdala in motor activation, reinforcement mechanisms, behavioral responses to stress, drug self-administration, and the neuroadaptation associated with drug dependence. Dr. Koob is one of the world’s authorities on the neurobiology of drug addic- tion. He has contributed to our understanding of the neurocircuitry associated with the acute reinforcing effects of drugs of abuse and more recently on the neuroadaptations of these reward circuits associated with the transition to depen- dence. He has validated key animal models for dependence associated with drugs of abuse and has begun to explore a key role of anti-reward systems in the develop- ment of dependence. Dr. Koob’s work with the neurobiology of stress includes the characterization of behavioral functions in the central nervous system for catecholamines, opioid pep- tides, and corticotropin-releasing factor. Corticotropin-releasing factor, in addition to its classical hormonal functions in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, is also located in extrahypothalamic brain structures and may have an important role in brain emotional function. Recent use of specific corticotropin-releasing factor antag- onists suggests that endogenous brain corticotropin-releasing factor may be involved in specific behavioral responses to stress, the psychopathology of anxiety and affec- tive disorders, and drug addiction. Dr. Koob also has characterized functional roles for other stress-related neurotransmitters/neuroregulators such as norepinephrine, vasopressin, hypocretin (orexin), neuropeptide Y, and neuroactive steroids. The identification of specific neurochemical systems within the basal forebrain system of the extended amygdala involved in motivation has significant theoreti- cal and heuristic impact. From a theoretical perspective, identification of a role for dopaminergic, opioidergic, GABAergic, glutamatergic, and corticotropin-releasing factor systems in excessive drug taking provides a neuropharmacologic basis for the allostatic changes hypothesized to drive the process of pathology associated with addiction, anxiety, and depression. From a heuristic perspective, these findings pro- vide a framework for further molecular, cellular, and neurocircuit research that will identify the basis for individual differences in vulnerability to pathology. © 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
- 18. xv Contributors Anne Beck Department of Psychiatry und Psychotherapy, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin Campus Charité Mitte Berlin, Germany Paul A. Garris Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Chemistry Illinois State University Normal, Illinois Anthony A. Grace Departments of Neuroscience, Psychiatry, and Psychology University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Danielle L. Graham CNS Pharmacology Merck Research Labs Boston, Massachusetts Sabine M. Grüsser Institute of Medical Psychology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin Campus Charité Mitte Berlin, Germany Karine Guillem Department of Psychiatry University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Benjamin Y. Hayden Department of Neurobiology Center for Neuroeconomic Studies and Center for Cognitive Neuroscience Duke University Medical Center Durham, North Carolina Andreas Heinz Department of Psychiatry und Psychotherapy, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin Campus Charité Mitte Berlin, Germany Jeffrey T. Klein Department of Neurobiology Center for Neuroeconomic Studies and Center for Cognitive Neuroscience Duke University Medical Center Durham, North Carolina George F. Koob Committee on the Neurobiology of Addictive Disorders The Scripps Research Institute La Jolla, California Alexai V. Kravitz Department of Psychiatry and Neuroscience Graduate Group University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Philadelphia, Pennsylvania © 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
- 19. xvi Contributors Cynthia M. Kuhn Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology Duke University Medical Center Durham, North Carolina Jan Mir Department of Psychiatry und Psychotherapy, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin Campus Charité Mitte Berlin, Germany Laura L. Peoples Department of Psychiatry and Neuroscience Graduate Group University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Michael L. Platt Department of Neurobiology Center for Neuroeconomic Studies and Center for Cognitive Neuroscience Duke University Medical Center Durham, North Carolina Stefan G. Sandberg Department of Biological Sciences Illinois State University Normal, Illinois David W. Self Department of Psychiatry Seay Center for Basic and Applied Research in Psychiatric Illness University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas, Texas Stephen V. Shepherd Neuroscience Institute Princeton University Princeton, New Jersey Karli K. Watson Department of Neurobiology Center for Neuroeconomic Studies and Center for Cognitive Neuroscience Duke University Medical Center Durham, North Carolina Friedbert Weiss Molecular and Integrative Neurosciences Department (SP30-2120) Scripps Research Institute La Jolla, California Jana Wrase Department of Psychiatry und Psychotherapy, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin Campus Charité Mitte Berlin, Germany © 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
- 20. 1 1 Advances in Animal Models of Relapse for Addiction Research Friedbert Weiss 1.1 Introduction and Scope 1.1.1 The Neurobehavioral Basis of Drug Seeking and Relapse Drug addiction is a chronically relapsing disorder characterized by compulsive drug- seeking and use (Leshner 1997; McLellan et al. 2000; O’Brien et al. 1998; O’Brien and McLellan 1996). Long-lasting vulnerability to relapse has been recognized as a phenomenon pivotal for the understanding and treatment of drug addiction. Elucidation of the neurobiological mechanisms underlying the chronically relaps- ing nature of addiction and identification of pharmacological treatment targets for relapse prevention has therefore emerged as the central issue of importance in addic- tion research. The clinical as well as experimental literature implicates three major factors precipitating craving and relapse. One of these is learned responses evoked by environmental stimuli that have become associated with the subjective actions Contents 1.1 Introduction and Scope......................................................................................1 1.1.1 The Neurobehavioral Basis of Drug Seeking and Relapse...................1 1.1.2 Modeling Relapse in Animals...............................................................3 1.1.3 Significance of Considering Dependence History in Animal Models of Relapse. .................................................................................5 1.2 Modeling the Incentive Effects of Drug Cues in Dependent Subjects..............8 1.2.1 Significance of History of Negative Reinforcement in Reinstatement........................................................................................9 1.2.2 Significance of Stimuli Conditioned to Negative Reinforcement in Reinstatement....................................................................................9 1.3 Modeling Interactions among Risk Factors for Relapse. .................................13 1.3.1 Interactive Effects of Drug Cues and Stress........................................13 1.3.2 Interactive Effects of History of Dependence, Drug Cues, and Stress....................................................................................................15 1.4 Concluding Remarks.......................................................................................15 References.................................................................................................................20 © 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
- 21. 2 Advances in the Neuroscience of Addiction of drugs of abuse by means of classical conditioning. Exposure to such stimuli can evoke drug desire and drug seeking, effects that have been implicated both in main- taining ongoing drug use and eliciting drug-seeking during abstinence (Everitt et al. 2001; Littleton 2000; O’Brien et al. 1998; See 2002; Van De Laar et al. 2004). Drug- relatedstimulicanalsoelicitautomaticresponsesthatleadtodrug-seekingandrelapse without recruiting conscious desire or distinct feelings of craving (Ingjaldsson et al. 2003; Miller and Gold 1994; Stormark et al. 1995; Tiffany and Carter 1998; Tiffany and Conklin 2000). Studies in animals have confirmed that environmental stimuli that have become associated with the reinforcing actions of drugs of abuse reliably elicit drug-seeking in animal models of relapse drug-seeking behavior (for review, see See 2002; Shaham and Miczek 2003; Shaham et al. 2003; Shalev et al. 2002). In particular, contextual stimuli predictive of cocaine (Ciccocioppo et al. 2004b, 2001b; Weiss et al. 2000, 2001), ethanol (Ciccocioppo et al. 2001a, 2003, 2002; Katner et al. 1999; Katner and Weiss 1999; Liu and Weiss 2002b), or heroin (Gracy et al. 2000) availability reliably elicit strong recovery of extinguished drug-seeking behav- ior. Indeed, drug seeking induced by these stimuli shows remarkable resistance to extinction (Weiss et al. 2001; Ciccocioppo et al. 2001a) and, in the case of cocaine, can still be observed after several months of abstinence (Ciccocioppo et al. 2001b; Weiss et al. 2001). Moreover, cocaine seeking induced by drug-related stimuli can progressively increase in strength (incubate) during long-term abstinence (Grimm et al. 2001). Overall, the persistence of the behavioral effects of drug-associated environmental cues resembles the persistence of conditioned cue reactivity and cue- induced craving in humans (e.g., Childress et al. 1993). Stress is the second factor with an established role in relapse to drug and alco- hol use in humans (e.g., Brown et al. 1995; Kreek and Koob 1998; Marlatt 1985; McKay et al. 1995; Sinha 2000, 2001; Sinha et al. 1999, 2000, 2006). The sig- nificance of stress in drug seeking and use is also well documented in the ani- mal literature. Various stressors facilitate acquisition of drug self-administration or increased drug intake in rodents (Blanchard et al. 1987; Goeders and Guerin 1994; Haney et al. 1995; Higley et al. 1991; Mollenauer et al. 1993; Nash and Maickel 1988; Ramsey and Van Ree 1993). More importantly, with respect to the present discussion, stress consistently elicits reinstatement of ethanol seeking in drug-free animals, with footshock being the predominant model of stress (for review, see Le and Shaham 2002; Sarnyai et al. 2001; Shaham et al. 2000; Shalev et al. 2002). A third factor with a major role in relapse is neuroadaptive dysregulation induced by chronic drug use. Such disturbances are thought to underlie symptoms of anxiety, irritability, autonomic arousal, and exaggerated responsiveness to anxiogenic stimuli that emerge when drug use is discontinued (Kajdasz et al. 1999; Kampman et al. 2001; McDougle et al. 1994). Growing evidence suggests that neuroadaptive changes outlast physical withdrawal and detoxification (Kowatch et al. 1992). For example, detoxified cocaine addicts exhibit increased panic and anxiety (Goodwin et al. 2002; Razzouk et al. 2000; Rounsaville et al. 1991; Walfish et al. 1990; Ziedonis et al. 1994) that may result directly from prior cocaine use (Aronson and Craig 1986; Blanchard and Blanchard 1999). Anxiety and other symptoms, such as drug crav- ing, sleep dysregulation, and somatic symptoms, predict poor outcome (Kasarabada © 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
- 22. Advances in Animal Models of Relapse for Addiction Research 3 et al. 1998). Such “protracted withdrawal” symptoms, originally described in opi- ate addicts (Martin and Jasinski 1969), also represent a common complication in patients recovering from cocaine and alcohol addiction (Angres and Benson 1985; Gawin and Kleber 1986; Kreek 1987; Meyer 1996; Satel et al. 1993) and introduce alleviation of discomfort and negative affect and, thus, negative reinforcement as a motivational basis for relapse. This chapter reviews animal models of relapse with emphasis on recent appli- cations to study and elucidate (a) the role of dependence history in susceptibility to relapse, (b) interactions among risk factors for relapse in eliciting drug-seeking behavior, and (c) procedures designed to study and differentiate the distinctly com- pulsive nature of drug-seeking as opposed to behavior motivated by natural rewards. This review will center on alcohol-seeking behavior as a model. However, the issues to be addressed apply to other drugs of abuse as well, and where applicable, the reader is referred to the appropriate literature. 1.1.2 Modeling Relapse in Animals The most widely employed animal model of craving and relapse use is the extinction- reinstatement model. This model has perhaps been most extensively applied for inves- tigations of the significance of environmental stimuli conditioned to the reinforcing actions of drugs of abuse in the relapse process, but is also widely employed to study the effects of stress and drug priming on the resumption of drug seeking. Here, we will focus predominantly on reinstatement in the context of conditioning studies. The model, its range of applications, and its limitations have been reviewed exten- sively elsewhere (See 2005; Shaham et al. 2003; Shalev et al. 2002; Katz and Higgins 2003; Shaham and Miczek 2003; Weiss 2005). Briefly, several variants of the model exist. In the most commonly employed procedure, animals are trained to respond at an operandum (e.g., lever or nose-poke sensor), and completion of a given schedule requirement results in delivery of the drug. Each drug-reinforced response is paired with brief presentation of one or more environmental stimuli (e.g., a tone, cue light). In this variant of the model, both drug administration and presentation of these conditioned stimuli (CS) are contingent upon the animal’s operant response. Use of a compound stimulus (i.e., concurrent presentation of two or more CS) typically produces more robust conditioned reinstatement than a single stimulus (See et al. 1999). Once reliable drug self-administration is acquired, drug-reinforced respond- ing is extinguished by withholding both the drug and CS until a given extinction criterion is reached. Reinstatement tests then are conducted in which the degree of recovery of responding at the previously drug-paired operandum, now maintained by response-contingent presentation of the CS only, serves as a measure of craving or relapse. Extinction and reinstatement tests can be conducted according to a within- session, between-session, and within-between session sequence. In the within-ses- sion procedure, a single extinction session is conducted, followed immediately by the reinstatement test (Figure 1.1A). In the between-session protocol, extinction ses- sions are conducted daily, and reinstatement tests commence typically one day after the extinction criterion is reached (Figure 1.1C). This procedure “adds” a drug-free (i.e., abstinence) period to the mere extinction of drug-reinforced responding. In the © 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
- 23. 4 Advances in the Neuroscience of Addiction between-within procedure, no extinction sessions are conducted after rats acquire drug-reinforced responding. Instead, an abstinence period is imposed, after which extinction and reinstatement sessions are conducted in a within-session manner (Figure 1.1B). In this application of the model, extinction responses (i.e., resistance to extinction) are often taken as a measure of craving and drug seeking, rather than reinstatement responses (Grimm et al. 2001; Lu et al. 2004). The great majority of contemporary applications of the extinction-reinstatement model employ the between-session or between-within-session procedure. A second variant of the extinction-reinstatement procedure is the contextual model. The procedures here are similar to those above, except that contextual stimuli pres- ent continuously throughout the drug self-administration are used for conditioning. That is, these stimuli are neither discretely paired with drug delivery nor contingent upon a response. Multiple contextual reinstatement procedures exist. One utilizes differential reinforcement of behavior in the presence of discriminative stimuli. In this procedure, during self-administration learning, responses at the operandum are reinforced by the drug only in the presence of this stimulus. In the absence of this stimulus (or the presence of an alternative stimulus), responses remain non reinforced. Owing to their predictive nature for drug availability, discriminative stimuli “set the occasion” for engaging in responding at the drug-paired lever (i.e., lead to the initia- tion of responding). Additionally, by virtue of their presence during drug consump- tion, these stimuli also become associated with the rewarding effects of the drug and thus acquire incentive motivational valence. As a result, these stimuli are particularly powerful in eliciting drug seeking and reinstatement. Another frequently employed contextual model, based on procedures by Bouton and colleagues (Bouton and Bolles 1979; Bouton and Swartzentruber 1986), utilizes distinct environments that provide compound contextual cues (i.e., concurrent presence of olfactory, auditory, EXT EXT EXT EXT EXT RST RST RST SA Between (different sessions/days) Within (single session) Within (single session) Between (different sessions/days) Drug-free period SA SA C B A Figure 1.1 Illustration of the temporal sequence of drug self-administration (SA), extinction (EXT), and reinstatement test (RST) sessions in three variants of the extinction- reinstatement model: the within-session (A), between-within (B), and between-session (C) procedure. © 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
- 24. Advances in Animal Models of Relapse for Addiction Research 5 tactile, and visual cues) to produce renewal of extinguished reward seeking. Briefly, in this model, responding is reinforced by a given (drug) reinforcer in one context. Instrumental responding then is extinguished in a second context. Subjects subse- quently tested in the second context show low drug seeking because the behavior has been extinguished in this context. In contrast, drug seeking shows reactivation or renewal (i.e., nonreinforced responding at the previously active operandum) in animals tested in the first (drug-paired) context. 1.1.3 Significance of Considering Dependence History in Animal Models of Relapse In the case of alcohol addiction, ample evidence exists to show that alcohol- associated stimuli or events can evoke drug desire that may lead to the resumption of drinking in abstinent alcoholics (Cooney et al. 1987, 1997; Eriksen and Gotestam 1984; Kaplan et al. 1985; Laberg 1986; Monti et al. 1987, 1993). The animal literature confirms a significant role for such conditioning factors in alcohol seeking and relapse. Studies using the extinction-reinstatement model show that stimuli discretely paired with alcohol delivery and alcohol-related contextual stimuli exert powerful and long-lasting control over ethanol-seeking behavior. Such stimuli reliably reinstate extinguished ethanol-seeking behavior as measured by the resumption of responding at a previously active ethanol-paired lever (Bachteler et al. 2005; Bienkowski et al. 1999; Ciccocioppo et al. 2001a, 2004a, 2003, 2002; Katner et al. 1999; Katner and Weiss 1999; Liu and Weiss 2002a, 2002b). The response- reinstating effects of ethanol-related contextual stimuli are surprisingly resistant to extinction in that the efficacy of these cues to elicit resumption of ethanol-seeking behavior does not diminish even when presented repeatedly under non-reinforced conditions (Figure 1.2A,B)—in contrast to behavior induced by stimuli conditioned to highly palatable natural reward (Figure 1.3). In this context, it should be noted that the data in Figures 1.2 and 1.3 document that the initial efficacy of reward-predictive contextual stimuli to elicit behavior directed at obtaining a given reward is similar regardless of whether the behavior is directed at obtaining hedonic gain associated with drug or alcohol reward versus nondrug reward. However, the pattern of differ- ential resistance to extinction with repeated exposure suggests that the conditioned incentive effects of alcohol or drug-related stimuli do not resemble the effects of stimuli conditioned to even highly desirable conventional reinforcers. Specifically drug-related environmental stimuli exert longer-lasting control over behavior than stimuli conditioned to potent conventional reinforcers. This therefore suggests that learning and associative processes responsible for ethanol-related conditioning are distinct from those mediating associations between stimuli paired with the reward- ing effects of conventional reinforcers and, presumably, these specific drug- or ethanol-relatedassociativeprocessesleadtocompulsive-likedrugseeking.Consistent with clinical findings, reinstatement induced by alcohol cues is sensitive to reversal by opioid antagonist administration (Bienkowski et al. 1999; Burattini et al. 2006; Ciccocioppo et al. 2003, 2002; Katner et al. 1999). In alcoholics, naltrexone attenu- ates cue-induced craving (Monti et al. 1999; Rohsenow et al. 2000) and reduces © 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
- 25. 6 Advances in the Neuroscience of Addiction Test Days Post-Extinction Mean (±SEM) Number of Responses 34 31 28 25 22 19 16 13 10 7 4 1 1 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 0 5 10 15 20 25 20 40 60 80 Training A Extinction Reinstatement 30 (30 min) (60 min) 0 COC+S+ SAL+S– S– S+ S+ 20 Days EtOH+S+ H2O+S– S– S+ S+ S– 100 B 80 60 40 Mean (SEM) Responses (30 mins) 20 0 EtOH Self-adm Ext 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * S+ S– Reinstatement Sessions Figure 1.2 (A) Persistence of the effects of a drug-related discriminative stimulus (S+) deter- mined at 3-day intervals over a 39-day period for ethanol (EtOH) in Indiana Alcohol Preferring P rats (upper panel; modified from Ciccocioppo R, Angeletti S, Weiss F (2001a) Long-lasting resistance to extinction of response reinstatement induced by ethanol-related stimuli: role of genetic ethanol preference. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 25: 1414–1419) and a 34-day period for cocaine (lower panel; modified from Weiss F, Martin-Fardon R, Ciccocioppo R, Kerr TM, Smith DL, Ben-Shahar O (2001) Enduring resistance to extinction of cocaine-seeking behavior induced by drug-related cues. Neuropsychopharmacology 25: 361–372). Note that responses remained at (or returned to) extinction levels when rats were presented with a discriminative stimulus condi- tioned to absence of reward (S−: days 1 and 31, top; days 3 and 18, bottom). All S+ effects were significant at the p 0.01 (cocaine) or p 0.05 (ethanol) level. (B) Persistence of the effects of an EtOH-predictive S+ over multiple reinstatement tests in genetically heterogeneous Wistar rats conducted every third day for a total of 10 sessions. Note that responding returned to extinction levels when an S– was presented (Sessions 2 and 10). **p 0.01, vs. extinction (Ext). © 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
- 26. Discovering Diverse Content Through Random Scribd Documents
- 27. Tancred went out, with as large a force as could be spared, to procure provisions, they were attacked by superior numbers, and obliged to return empty-handed. Bishop Adhémar, seeing in the sins of the camp a just cause for the punishments that were falling upon it, enjoined a three days’ fast, and public prayers. The former was superfluous, inasmuch as the whole camp was fasting. But he did more. He caused all women to be sent away, and all games of chance to be entirely prohibited. The distress continued, but hope and confidence were revived; and when, early in the year 1098, supplies were brought in, the army regained most of its old bravoure. A victory gained over a reinforcement of twenty-five thousand Turks aided in reviving the spirit of the soldiers: it was in this action that Godfrey is reported to have cut a Turk completely through the body, so that his horse galloped off with the legs and lower part of the trunk still in the saddle. The camp of the enemy was taken, and for a time there was once more abundance. But the siege was not yet over. For eight months it lingered on, defended with the obstinacy that the Turks always displayed when brought to bay within stone walls. It was not till June that the town, not the citadel, was taken, by the treachery of one Pyrrhus, an Armenian renegade. He offered secretly to put the town, which was in his charge, into the hands of Bohemond. The Norman chief, always anxious to promote his own interests, proposed, at the council of the Crusaders, to take the town on condition that it should be given to him. Raymond of Toulouse alone objected—his objection was overruled; and on the night of the 2nd of June, Pyrrhus admitted the Christians. They made themselves masters, under cover of the darkness, of ten of the towers round the walls; and opening the gates to their own men, made an easy conquest of the town in the morning, slaughtering every Mussulman they could find. Baghi Seyan fled, and, being abandoned by his guards, was murdered by some Syrian woodcutters, who brought his head to the camp. And then, once more, untaught by their previous sufferings, the Crusaders for a few days gave themselves up to the enjoyment of their booty. But the citadel was not taken, and the host of Kerboga was within a short march of the town. He came with the largest army that the
- 28. Christians had yet encountered. Robert of Flanders defended the bridge for a whole day with five hundred men, but was obliged to retire, and the Christians were in their turn the besieged. And then, again, famine set in. The seashore was guarded by the Turks, and supplies could not be procured from the fleet; the horses, and all the beasts of burden, were slaughtered and eaten; some of the knights who were fainthearted managed to let themselves down by ropes from the walls, and made their way to Stephen of Blois, who had long since separated from the main army, and was now lying at Alexandretta. They brought such accounts of the misery of the army, that Stephen abandoned the cause as hopeless, and set sail with his men for Cilicia. Here he found Alexis himself, with a large army, consisting chiefly of those who had arrived too late to join the army of Godfrey. The newcomers heard with dismay the accounts given by Stephen; they gave themselves up to lamentation and despair; they blasphemed the God who had permitted His soldiers to be destroyed, and for some days would actually permit no prayers to be offered up in their camp. Alexis broke up his camp, and returned to Constantinople. And when the news arrived in Antioch, the Crusaders, too wretched to fight or to hope, shut themselves up in the houses, and refused to come out. Bohemond set fire to the town, and so compelled them to show themselves, but could not make them fight. Where human eloquence failed, one of those miracles, common enough in the ages of credulity, the result of overheated imaginations and excited brains, succeeded. A vision of the night came to one Peter Bartholomæus, a monk, of two men in shining raiment. One of them, St. Andrew himself, took the monk into the air, and brought him to the Church of St. Peter, and set him at the south side of the altar. He then showed him the head of a lance. “This,” he said, “was the lance which opened the side of Our Lord. See where I bury it. Get twelve men to dig in the spot till they find it.” But in the morning Peter was afraid to tell his vision. This was before the taking of Antioch. But after the town was taken, the vision came again, and in his dream Peter saw once more the apostle, and received his reproaches for neglect of his commands.
- 29. Peter remonstrated that he was poor and of no account; and then he saw that the apostle’s companion was none other than the Blessed Lord himself, and the humble monk was privileged to fall and kiss His feet. We are not of those who believe that men are found so base as to contrive a story of this kind. There is little doubt in our minds that this poor Peter, starving as he was, full of fervour and enthusiasm, dreamed his dream, not once but twice, and went at last, brimful of pious gratitude, to Adhémar with his tale. Adhémar heard him with incredulity and coldness. But Raymond saw in this incident a means which might be turned to good account. He sent twelve men to the church, and from morning till night they dug in vain. But at length Peter himself, leaping into the hole they had made, called aloud on God to redeem his promise, and produced a rusty spear-head. Adhémar acquiesced with the best grace in his power; the lance was exhibited to the people the next morning, and the enthusiasm of the army, famished, and ragged, and dismounted, once more beat as high as when they sewed the red Cross badge upon their shoulders, and shouted “Dieu le veut.” They had been besieged three weeks; all their horses, except three hundred, were killed. Their ranks were grievously thinned, but they went out to meet the enemy with such confidence that the only orders given related to the distribution of the plunder. As they took their places in the plain, Adhémar raised their spirits by the announcement of another miracle. Saint George, Saint Maurice, and Saint Demetrius, had themselves been distinctly seen to join the army, and were in their midst. The Christians fought as only religious enthusiasts can fight—as the Mohammedans fought when the Caliph Omar led his conquering bands northwards, with the delights of heaven for those who fell, and the joys of earth for those who survived. The Turks were routed with enormous slaughter. Their camp, rich and luxurious, fell into the hands of the conquerors;[50] plenty took the place of starvation; the common soldiers amused themselves with decking their persons with the silken robes they found in the huts; the cattle were driven to the town in long
- 30. processions; and once more, forgetful of all but the present, the Christians revelled and feasted. 50. Among the spoils taken by the Christians one of the chroniclers reports a mass of manuscripts, “on which were traced the sacrilegious rites of the Mahometans in execrable characters,” doubtless Arabic. Probably among these manuscripts were many of the greatest importance. Nothing is said about their fate, but of course they were all destroyed. The rejoicings had hardly ceased when it was found that another enemy had to be encountered. Battle was to be expected: famine had already twice been experienced: this time it was pestilence, caused, no doubt, by the crowding together of so large an army and the absence of sanitary measures. The first to fall was the wise and good Adhémar, most sensible of all the chiefs. His was a dire loss to the Crusaders. Better could they have spared even the fiery Tancred, or the crafty Bohemond. The Crusaders, terrified and awe-stricken, clamoured to be led to Jerusalem, but needs must that they remained till the heats of summer passed, and health came again with the early winter breezes, in their camp at Antioch. It was not till November that they set out on their march to Jerusalem. The time had been consumed in small expeditions, the capture of unimportant places, and the quarrels of the princes over the destination of Antioch, which Bohemond claimed for himself. Their rival claims were still unsettled, when the voice of the people made itself heard, and very shame made them, for a time at least, act in concert, and the advance corps, led by Bohemond, Robert of Normandy, and Raymond of Toulouse, began their southward march with the siege of Marra, an important place, which they took, after three or four weeks, by assault. Fresh disputes arose about the newly-acquired town, but the common soldiers, furious at these never-ending delays, ended them by the simple expedient of pulling down the walls. It was the middle of January, however, before they resumed their march. From Marah to Capharda, thence along the Orontes, when the small towns were placed in their hands, to Hums, when they turned westward to the sea, and sat down before the castle of Arca till they should be joined by the main body, which was
- 31. still at Antioch. It came up in April, and the army of the Crusaders, united again, were ready to resume their march when they were interrupted by more disputes. In an ill-timed hour, Bohemond, the incredulous Norman, accused Raymond of conniving with Peter to deceive the army by palming off upon them an old rusty lance-head as the sacred spear which had pierced the side of the Lord. Arnold, chaplain to Duke Robert of Normandy, was brought forward to support the charge. He rested his argument chiefly on the fact that Adhémar had disbelieved the miracle: but he contended as well that the spear-head could not possibly be in Antioch. He was confuted in the manner customary to the time. One bold monk swore that Adhémar, after death, for his contumacy in refusing to believe in the miracle, had been punished by having one side of his beard burned in the flames of hell, and was not permitted a full enjoyment of heaven till the beard should grow again. Another quoted a prophecy of Saint Peter, alleged to be in a Syrian gospel, that the invention of the lance was to be a sign of the deliverance of the Christians; a third had spoken personally with Saint Mark himself; while the Virgin Mary had appeared by night to a fourth to corroborate the story. Arnold pretended to give way before testimony so overwhelming, and was ready to retract his opinion publicly, when Peter, crazed with enthusiasm, offered to submit his case to the ordeal of fire. This method was too congenial to the fierce and eager spirits of the Crusaders to be refused. Raymond d’Agiles, who was a witness, thus tells the story. “Peter’s proposition appeared to us reasonable, and after enjoining a fast on Peter, we agreed to kindle the fire on Good Friday itself. “On the day appointed, the pile was prepared after noon; the princes and the people assembled to the number of forty thousand; the priests coming barefooted and dressed in their sacerdotal robes. The pile was made with dry branches of olive-trees, fourteen feet long, and four feet high, divided into two heaps, with a narrow path, a foot wide, between each. As soon as the wood began to burn, I myself, Raymond,[51] pronounced these words, ‘If the Lord himself has spoken to this man face to face, and if Saint Andrew has shown him the lance of the Lord, let him pass through the fire without
- 32. receiving any hurt: or, if not, let him be burnt with the lance which he carries in his hand.’ And all bending the knee, replied, ‘Amen.’ 51. He was chaplain to Count Raymond of Toulouse. “Then Peter, dressed in a single robe, kneeling before the bishop of Albaric, called God to witness that he had seen Jesus on the cross face to face, and that he had heard from the mouth of the Saviour, and that of the apostles, Peter and Andrew, the words reported to the princes: he added that nothing of what he had said in the name of the saints and in the name of the Lord had been invented by himself, and declared that if there was found any falsehood in his story, he consented to suffer from the flames. And for the other sins that he had committed against God and his neighbours, he prayed that God would pardon him, and that the bishop, all the other priests, and the people would implore the mercy of God for him. This said, the bishop gave him the lance. “Peter knelt again, and making the sign of the cross he reached the flames without appearing afraid. He remained one moment in the midst of the fire, and then came out by the grace of God.... After Peter had gone through the fire, and although the flames were still raging, the people gathered up the brands, the ashes, and the charcoal, with such ardour that in a few moments nothing was left. The Lord in the end performed great miracles by means of these sacred relics. Peter came out of the flames without even his gown being burned, and the light veil which covered the lance-head escaped uninjured. He made immediately the sign of the cross, and cried with a loud voice, ‘God help!’ to the crowd, who pressed upon him to be certain that it was really he. Then, in their eagerness, and because everybody wanted to touch him, and to have even some little piece of his dress, they trampled him under their feet, cut off pieces of his flesh, broke his back-bone, and broke his ribs. He was only saved from being killed there and then by Raymond Pelot, a knight, who hastily called a number of soldiers and rescued him. “When he was brought into our tent, we dressed his wounds, and asked him why he had stopped so long in the fire. ‘Because,’ he said,
- 33. ‘the Lord appeared to me in the midst of the flames, and taking me by the hand, said, ‘Since thou hast doubted of the holy lance, which the blessed Andrew showed to thee, thou shalt not go out from this sound and safe. Nevertheless, thou shalt not see hell.’ After these words He sent me on. ‘See now the marks of fire on my body.’ And, in fact, there were certain burnings in the legs, small in number, though the wounds were great.” Peter Bartholomew died the day after—of the fire, said Bohemond, the doubter, who continued in his disbelief, in spite of the ordeal; of the injuries he had received in the crowd, said Raymond of Toulouse. But the authority of the lance was established, and it was to do good service in the battles to come. The faith of the Crusaders was kept up by many other visions and miracles. One that had the greatest effect was a vision seen by Anselm. To him appeared by night Angelram, the young son of the Count of Saint Paul, who had been killed at Marra. “Know,” said the phantom, “that those who fight for Christ die not.” “And whence this glory that surrounds you?” Then Angelram showed in the heavens a palace of crystal and diamonds. “It is there,” he said, “that I have borrowed my splendour. There is my dwelling-place. One finer still is preparing for you, into which you will soon enter.” The next day Anselm, after telling of this apparition, confessed and received the sacraments, though full of health, and going into battle, was struck by a stone in the forehead, and died immediately. On their way to Tripoli,[52] where they first saw the sugar-cane, the impatience of the soldiers manifested itself so strongly that the chiefs could not venture to sit down before the place, but pushed on, after making a sort of treaty with its governor. Here messengers arrived from Alexis, entreating them to wait for him, and promising to bring an army in July. But the time was gone by for negotiation and delay, and taking the sea-shore route, by which they ensured the protection of the fleet, they marched southwards to Beirout. Sidon, and Tyre, and Acre, were passed without much opposition, and the Crusaders arrived at Cæsarea, which is within sixty miles of Jerusalem. By marches quick rather than forced, for the enthusiasm of the army was once more at its height, they reached Lydda, where
- 34. the church of Saint George lay in ruins, having recently been destroyed by the Turks, and thence to Ramleh. Here an embassy from Bethlehem waited for them with prayers to protect their town. Tancred, with a hundred knights only, rode off with them. The people received them with psalms of joy, and took them to see the Church of the Nativity. But they would not stay. Bethlehem is but four miles from Jerusalem, and Tancred rode on in advance, eager to be the first to see the city. He ascended the mount of Olives unmolested, and there found a hermit who pointed out to him the sacred sites. The little troop rode back in triumph to tell the Crusaders that the city was almost within their grasp. The soldiers, rough and rude as they were, and stained with every vice, were yet open to the influences of this, the very goal of their hopes. From a rising ground they beheld at last the walls of the Holy City. “And when they heard the name of Jerusalem, the Christians could not prevent themselves, in the fervour of their devotion, from shedding tears; they fell on their faces to the ground, glorifying and adoring God, who, in His goodness, had heard the prayers of His people and had granted them, according to their desires, to arrive at this most sacred place, the object of all their hopes.” 52. While they were considering which road was the easiest for their march to Jerusalem, the Crusaders received a deputation from a Christian people, said to be sixty thousand in number, living in the mountains of Lebanus. They offered their services as guides, and pointed out that there were three roads: the first by way of Damascus, level and plain, and always abounding in provisions; the second over Mount Lebanon, safe from any enemy, and also full of provisions, but difficult for beasts of burden; and the third by the sea-shore, abounding in defiles, where “fifty Mussulmans would be able, if they pleased, to stop the whole of mankind.” “But,” said these Christians, “if you are of a verity that nation which is to overcome Jerusalem, you must pass along the sea-shore, however difficult that road may appear, according to the Gospel of St. Peter. Your way, such as you have made it, and such as you must make it, is all laid down in that Gospel which we possess.” What was this Gospel? or is it only one of the credulous stories of Raymond d’Agiles? The army which sat down before Jerusalem numbered about twenty thousand fighting men, and an equal number of camp
- 35. followers, old men, women, and children. This was the miserable remnant of that magnificent army of six hundred thousand, with which Godfrey had taken Nicæa and punished the massacre of Walter and his rabble. Where were all the rest? The road was strewn with their bones. Across the thirsty deserts of Asia Minor, on the plain of Dorylæum, and on the slopes and passes of Taurus, the Crusaders’ bodies lay unburied, while before and within Antioch, the city of disasters, thousands upon thousands were thrown into the river or lay in unhallowed soil. But they were not all killed. Many had returned home, among whom were Hugh le Grand and Stephen of Blois; many had left the main body and gone off in free-handed expeditions of their own, to join Baldwin and others. Thus we have heard of Wolf, the Burgundian conqueror of Adana. Presently we find that Guymer the pirate of Boulogne, who joined Baldwin at Tarsus, must have left him again, and returned to his piratical ways, for we find him in prison at Tripoli; he was delivered up by the governor of Tripoli to the Christians, after which he appears no more. Then some had been taken prisoners, and purchased their lives by apostacy, like Rinaldo the Italian. And those of the captive women who were yet young were dragging out their lives in the Turkish harems. Probably the boys, too, were spared, and those who were young enough to forget their Christian blood brought up to be soldiers of the Crescent. The neighbourhood of Jerusalem was covered with light brushwood, but there were no trees; there had been grass in plenty, but it was dried up by the summer sun; there were wells and cisterns, but they had all been closed,—“the fountains were sealed.” Only the pool of Siloam was accessible to the Crusaders; this was intermittent and irregular, and its supply, when it did flow, was miserably inadequate for a host of forty thousand. Moreover, its waters were brackish and disagreeable. And the camp was full of sick, wounded, and helpless. On the west, east, and south sides of the city no attack was possible, on account of the valleys by which it was naturally protected. The Crusaders pitched their camp in the north. First in the post of danger, as usual, was the camp of Godfrey, Duke of Lorraine.
- 36. His position extended westwards from the valley of Jehoshaphat, along the north wall. Next to him came the Count of Flanders; next, Robert of Normandy, near whom was Edgar Atheling with his English; at the north-west angle was Tancred; and lastly, the camp of the Count of Toulouse extended along the west as far as the Jaffa Gate. Later on, however, Raymond moved a portion of his camp to that part of Mount Sion stretching south of the modern wall. But the only place where an attacking party could hope for success was on the north. Bohemond was not with the army. He cared less about taking the city than wreaking his vengeance upon the Greek emperor. Meantime, within the city was an army of forty thousand men. Provisions for a long siege had been conveyed into the town; the zeal of the defenders had been raised by the exhortations of the Imams; the walls were strengthened and the moats deepened. Communication and relief were possible from the east, where only scattered bands of the Christians barred the way. Immediately before the arrival of the Crusaders, the Mohammedans deliberated whether they should slaughter all the Christians in cold blood, or only fine them and expel them from the city. It was decided to adopt the latter plan; and the Crusaders were greeted on their arrival not only by the flying squadrons of the enemy’s cavalry, but also by exiled Christians telling their piteous tales. Their houses had been pillaged, their wives kept as hostages; immense sums were required for their ransom; the churches were desecrated; and, even worse still, the Infidels were contemplating the entire destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. This last charge, at least, was not true. But it added fuel to a fire which was already beyond any control, and the chiefs gave a ready permission to their men to carry the town, if they could, by assault. They had neither ladders nor machines, but, covering themselves with their bucklers, rushed against the walls and tried to tear them down with pikes and hammers. Boiling oil and pitch, the best weapons for the besieged, were poured upon their heads, with huge stones and enormous beams. In spite of heavy losses, they managed to tear down and carry a portion of the outer wall, and the besieged retired to their inner works, which were impregnable, at least to hammers
- 37. and pikes. One ladder, and only one, was found. Tancred, with his usual hardihood, was the first to place his foot on the ladder, but he was forcibly held back by his knights, who would not allow him to rush upon certain death. Two or three gained the wall, and were thrown from it dead. Night put an end to the fight, and the Christians, dejected and beaten back, retired to their camp. Heaven would work no miracles for them, and it was clear that the city must be taken according to the ordinary methods of warfare. Machines were necessary, but there was no wood. Chance threw into their possession a cavern, forgotten by the Saracens, filled with a store of timber, which went some way. There were still some beams in the houses and churches round Jerusalem not yet burned. All these were brought into the camp, but still there was not enough. Then a Syrian Christian bethought him of a wood six miles off, on the road to Samaria, whither he led the Crusaders. The trees were small, and not of the best kind, but such as they were they had to suffice, and all hands were employed in the construction of towers and engines of assault. They worked with the energy of men who have but one hope. For, in the midst of a Syrian summer, with a burning sun over their heads, they had no water. The nearest wells, except the intermittent spring of Siloam, were six or seven miles away. To bring the water into the camp, strong detachments were daily sent out; the country was scoured for miles in every direction for water; hundreds perished in casual encounters with the enemy, while wandering in search of wells; and the water, when it was procured, was often so muddy and impure that the very horses refused to drink it. As for those who worked in the camp, they dug up the ground and sucked the moist earth; they cut pieces of turf and laid them at their hearts to appease the devouring heat; in the morning they licked the dew from the grass; they abstained from eating till they were compelled by faintness; they drank the blood of their beasts. Never, not even in Antioch, not even in Phrygia, had their sufferings been so terrible, or so protracted. And, as the days went on, as the sun grew fiercer, the dews more scanty—as the miracle, still expected, delayed to come—some lay despairing in their tents, some worked on in a despairing energy, and some threw themselves
- 38. down at the foot of the walls to die, or to be killed by the besieged, crying, “Fall, oh walls of Jerusalem, upon us! Sacred dust of the city, at least cover our bones!” These trials were to have an end. In the midst of their greatest distress, the news came that a Genoese fleet had arrived off Joppa, loaded with munitions and provisions. A detachment of three hundred men was sent off at once to receive them. They fought their way to Joppa. Here they found that the Christian ships had been abandoned to a superior Egyptian fleet, but not till after all the stores and provisions had been landed. With the fleet was a large number of Genoese artificers and carpenters, whose arrival in the camp was almost as timely as that of the wine and food. The hopes of the Crusaders, always as sanguine as they were easily dejected, revived again. This unexpected reinforcement—was it not a miracle? and might there not be others yet to follow? Gaston of Béarn superintended the construction of the machines. In the carriage of their timber, as they had no carts or wheels, they employed their Saracen prisoners. Putting fifty or sixty of them in line, they made them carry beams “which four oxen could not drag.” Raymond of Toulouse, who alone had not spent all he had brought with him, found the money to pay those few who were exempted from gratuitous service. A regular service for the carriage of water was organised, and some alleviation thus afforded to the sufferings caused by thirst. Three great towers were made, higher than the walls. Each of these was divided into three stages; the lowest for the workmen, and the two higher for the soldiers. The front and sides exposed to the enemy were cased with plates of iron, or defended by wet hides; the back part was of wood. On the top was a sort of drawbridge, which could be lowered so as to afford a passage to the wall. All being ready, it was determined to preface the attack by a processional march round the city. After a fast of three days and solemn services, the Crusaders solemnly went in procession, barefooted and bareheaded, round the city. They were preceded by their priests in white surplices, carrying the images of saints, and chanting psalms; their banners were displayed, the clarions blew. As
- 39. the Israelites marched round Jericho, the Crusaders marched round Jerusalem, and doubtless many longing eyes, though more in doubt than in hope, were turned upon the walls to see if they, too, would fall. They did not. The besieged crowded upon them, holding crosses, which they insulted, and discharging their arrows at the procession. But the hearts of the rough soldiers were moved to the utmost, not by the taunts of their enemies, but by the sight of the sacred spots, and the memory of the things which had taken place there: there was Calvary; here Gethsemane, where Christ prayed and wept; here the place where He ascended; here the spot on which He stood while He wept over the city. They, too, could see it lying at their feet, with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and the Great Mosque in the midst of the place where had been the Temple of the Lord. These places cried aloud to them for deliverance. Or, if they looked behind them, to the east, they saw the banks of the river across which Joshua had passed, and the Dead Sea which lay above the Cities of the Plain. Arnold, chaplain to Duke Robert of Normandy—an eloquent man, but of dissolute morals—harangued them. His discourse had been preserved after the manner of historians; that is, we are told what he ought to have said; very likely, in substance, what he did say. God, he told them, would pardon them all sins in recompense for their recovery of the holy places. And he made the chiefs themselves, who had sinned by quarrelling and dissension, embrace in presence of the whole army, and thereby set the example of perfect union. Then they renewed, for the last time, their oaths of fidelity to the Cross. Peter the Hermit, who was with them, harangued them also. And in the evening the soldiers returned to the camp to confess their sins, to receive the Eucharist, and to spend the night in prayer. Godfrey alone was active. He perceived that the Saracens had constructed on the wall opposite to the position of his great tower, works which would perhaps render it useless. He therefore took it down, and transported it, with very great labour, and in a single night, to a spot which he considered the weakest in the north wall. Here it was re-erected to the dismay of the besieged.
- 40. At break of day on Thursday, July 14th, 1099, the attack began. The towers were moved against the walls, the mangonels hurled their stones into the city, and the battering-rams were brought into play. All day long the attack was carried on, but to little effect, and at nightfall, when the Crusaders returned to their camp, the tower of Raymond was in ruins; those of Tancred and Godfrey were so damaged that they could not be moved; and the princes were seen beating their hands in despair, and crying that God had abandoned them. “Miserable men that we are!” cried Robert of Normandy; “God judges us unworthy to enter into the Holy City, and worship at the tomb of His Son.” The next day was Friday, the day of the Crucifixion. At daybreak the battle began again. It went well for the Crusaders; the wall was broken in many places, and the besieged with all their endeavours could not set fire to the towers. In the middle of the day they brought out two magicians—witches, it is said, though one hardly believes it. They made their incantations on the walls, attended by their maidens.[53] These were all destroyed at once by stones from the mangonels. But the day went on, and the final assault could not be delivered for the courage and ferocity of the Saracens. And then, the usual miracle happened. Godfrey and Raymond, shouting that heaven had come to their rescue, pointed to the Mount of Olives, where stood a man, “miles splendidus et refulgens,” one clothed in bright and glittering armour, waving his shield as a signal for the advance. Who could it be but Saint George himself? In the midst of a shower of arrows, Greek fire, and stones, the tower of Godfrey was pushed against the wall; the drawbridge fell; Godfrey himself was among the first to leap upon the wall. And then the rumour ran, that not only Saint George, but Bishop Adhémar—dead Bishop Adhémar himself—was in the ranks, and fighting against the Infidel. The supreme moment was arrived! A whisper went through the troops that it was now three o’clock; the time, as well as the day, when our Lord died, on the very spot where they were fighting. Even the women and children joined in the attack, and mingled their cries with the shouts of the soldiers. The Saracens gave way, and Jerusalem was taken.
- 41. 53. Robert of Normandy might have remembered that a similar plan had been adopted by his father against Hereward in Ely. The city was taken, and the massacre of its defenders began. The Christians ran through the streets, slaughtering as they went. At first they spared none, neither man, woman, nor child, putting all alike to the sword; but when resistance had ceased, and rage was partly appeased, they began to bethink them of pillage, and tortured those who remained alive to make them discover their gold. As for the Jews within the city, they had fled to their synagogue, which the Christians set on fire, and so burned them all. The chroniclers relate with savage joy, how the streets were encumbered with heads and mangled bodies, and how in the Haram Area, the sacred enclosure of the Temple, the knights rode in blood up to the knees of their horses. Here upwards of ten thousand were slaughtered, while the whole number of killed amounted, according to various estimates, to forty, seventy, and even a hundred thousand. An Arabic historian, not to be outdone in miracles by the Christians, reports that at the moment when the city fell, a sudden eclipse took place, and the stars appeared in the day. Fugitives brought the news to Damascus and Baghdad. It was then the month of Ramadan, but the general trouble was such that the very fast was neglected. No greater misfortune, except, perhaps, the loss of Mecca, could have happened to Islamism. The people went in masses to the mosques; the poets made their verses of lamentation: “We have mingled our blood with our tears. No refuge remains against the woes that overpower us.... How can ye close your eyes, children of Islam, in the midst of troubles which would rouse the deepest sleeper? Will the chiefs of the Arabs resign themselves to such evils? and will the warriors of Persia submit to such disgrace? Would to God, since they will not fight for their religion, that they would fight for the safety of their neighbours! And if they give up the rewards of heaven, will they not be induced to fight by the hope of booty?”[54] 54. From a poem by Mozaffer el Abiwardí.
- 42. Evening fell, and the clamour ceased, for there were no more enemies to kill, save a few whose lives had been promised by Tancred. Then from their hiding-places in the city came out the Christians who still remained in it. They had but one thought, to seek out and welcome Peter the Hermit, whom they proclaimed as their liberator. At the sight of these Christians, a sudden revulsion of feeling seized the soldiers. They remembered that the city they had taken was the city of the Lord, and this impulsive soldiery, sheathing swords reeking with blood, followed Godfrey to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, where they passed the night in tears, and prayers, and services. In the morning the carnage began again. Those who had escaped the first fury were the women and children. It was now resolved to spare none. Even the three hundred to whom Tancred had promised life were slaughtered in spite of him. Raymond alone managed to save the lives of those who capitulated to him from the tower of David. It took a week to kill the Saracens, and to take away their dead bodies. Every Crusader had a right to the first house he took possession of, and the city found itself absolutely cleared of its old inhabitants, and in the hands of a new population. The true Cross, which had been hidden by the Christians during the siege, was brought forth again, and carried in joyful procession round the city, and for ten days the soldiers gave themselves up to murder, plunder —and prayers! And the First Crusade was finished.
- 43. CHAPTER VII. THE CHRISTIAN KINGDOM. KING GODFREY. A.D. 1099-1100. Signor, ceste cité vous l’avez conquesté; Or faut élire un roi dont elle soit gardée, Et la terre environ des païens recensée. Romans de Godefroi. For seven days after the conquest of the city and the massacre of the inhabitants the Crusaders, very naturally, abandoned themselves to rest, feasting, and services of thanksgiving. On the eighth day a council was held to determine the future mode of holding and governing their newly-acquired possessions. At the outset a remonstrance was presented by the priests, jealous as usual of their supremacy, against secular matters being permitted to take the lead of things ecclesiastical, and demanding that, before aught else was done, a Patriarch should be first elected. But the Christians were a long way from Rome. The conduct of their priests on the journey had not been such as to inspire the laity with respect for their valour, prudence, or morality, and the chiefs dismissed the remonstrance with contempt. Robert of Flanders, in this important council, was the first to speak. He called upon his peers, setting aside all jealousies and ambitions, to elect from their own body one who might be found to unite the best valour of a knight with the best virtue of a Christian. And in a noble speech which has been preserved—if, indeed, it was not written long after the time—he disclaimed, for his own part, any
- 44. desire to canvass their votes, or to become the king of Jerusalem. “I entreat you to receive my counsel as I give it you, with affection, frankness, and loyalty; and to elect for king him who, by his own worth, will best be able to preserve and extend this kingdom, to which are attached the honour of your arms, and the cause of Jesus Christ.” Many had begun to think of offering the crown to Robert himself. But this was not his wish; and among the rest their choice clearly lay between Godfrey, Robert of Normandy, Raymond of Toulouse, and Tancred. Of these, Tancred and Robert were men ambitious of glory rather than of honours. The latter had thrown away the crown of England once, and was going to throw it away again. With equal readiness he threw away the crown of Jerusalem. Raymond, who had sworn never to return to Europe, was old and unpopular, probably from the absence of the princely munificence and affability that distinguished Godfrey, perhaps also from lack of those personal charms which his rival possessed. To be handsome as well as brave was given to Godfrey, but if it had ever been given to Raymond, his day of comeliness was past. A sort of committee of ten was appointed, whose business it was to examine closely into the private character of the chiefs, as well as into their prowess. History is prudently silent as to the reports made on the characters of the rest, but we know what was said about Godfrey. Though the Provençal party invented calumnies against him, his own servants were explicit and clear in their evidence. Nothing whatever could be set down against him. Pure and unsullied in his private life, he came out of this ordeal with no other accusation against him, by those who were with him at all hours of the day and night, but one, and that the most singular complaint ever brought against a prince by his servants. They stated that in all the private acts of the duke, the one which they found most vexatious (absonum) was that when he went into a church he could not be got out of it, even after the celebration of service; but he was used to stay behind and inquire of the priests and those who seemed to have any knowledge of the matter, about the meaning and history of each picture and image: his companions, being otherwise minded, were affected with continual tedium and
- 45. even disgust at this conduct, which was certainly thoughtless, because the meals, cooked, of course, in readiness for a certain hour, were often, owing to this exasperating delay, served up cold and tasteless. There is a touch of humour in the grave way in which this charge is brought forward by the historian, who evidently enjoys the picture of Godfrey’s followers standing by and waiting, while their faces grow longer as they think of the roast, which is certain to be either cold or overdone. No one was astonished, and most men rejoiced, when the electors declared that their choice had fallen upon Godfrey. They conducted him in solemn procession to the Church of the Sepulchre with hymns and psalms. Here he took an oath to respect the laws of justice, but when the coronation should have taken place, Godfrey put away the crown. He would not wear a crown of gold when his Lord had worn a crown of thorns. Nor would he take the title of king. Of this, he said he was not worthy. Let them call him the Baron of the Holy Sepulchre. He never wore the crown, but the voice of posterity has always given him the name of king. Godfrey of Lorraine, born at Boulogne in the year 1058, or thereabouts, was the son of Count Eustace, and the nephew of the Duke of Lorraine. His brother Baldwin, who came with him as far as Asia Minor, but separated then from the Crusaders and gained the principality of Edessa, was the second son. Eustace, who afterwards became Count of Boulogne, was the third. And his sister, Matilda, was the wife of our king Stephen. The story of Godfrey, who is the real hero of the First Crusade, is made up of facts, visions, and legends. Let us tell them altogether. At an early age he was once playing with his two brothers, when his father entered the room. At that moment the children were all hiding in the folds of their mother’s dress. Count Eustace, seeing the dress shaken, asked who was behind it, “There,” replied the Lady Ida, in the spirit of prophecy, “are three great princes. The first shall be a duke, the second a king, and the third a count,” a prediction which was afterwards exactly fulfilled. Unfortunately, no record exists of this prophecy till nearly a hundred years after it was made. Godfrey was adopted by his uncle, the Duke of Lorraine, and, at the
- 46. age of sixteen, joined the fortunes of the emperor Henry IV. He fought in all the campaigns of that unquiet sovereign; he it was who, at the battle of Malsen, carried the Imperial banner, and signalized himself by killing Rudolph of Swabia with his own hand. He was present when, after three years’ siege, Henry succeeded in wresting Rome from Hildebrand in 1083, and in reward for his bravery on that occasion, he received the duchy of Lorraine when it was forfeited by the defection of Conrad. An illness, some time after, caused him to vow a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and until the Crusade started Godfrey had no rest or peace. During this period of expectation, a vision, related by Albert of Aix, came to one of his servants. He saw, like Jacob, a ladder which was all pure gold, ascending from earth to heaven. Godfrey, followed by his servant Rothard, was mounting this ladder. Rothard had a lamp in his hand; in the middle of the ascent the lamp went out suddenly. Dismayed at this accident, Rothard came down the ladder, and declined to relight his lamp or to climb up again. Godfrey, however, undaunted, went on. Then the seer of the vision himself took the lamp and followed his master; both arrived safely at the top, and there, which was no other place than Heaven itself, they enjoyed the favours of God. The ladder was of pure gold, to signify that pilgrims must have pure hearts, and the gate to which it led was Jerusalem, the gate of heaven. Rothard, whose light went out half way, who came down in despair, was an image of those pilgrims who take the Cross but come back again in despair; and he who saw the vision and went up with Godfrey typified those Crusaders, a faithful few, who endured unto the end. Stories are told to illustrate the prowess of this great and strong man. On one occasion, when he was compelled to defend his rights to some land by the ordeal of battle, his sword broke off short upon the buckler of his adversary, leaving him not more than six inches of steel. The knights present at the duel interposed in order to stop a combat so unequal, but Godfrey himself insisted on going on. His adversary pressed him with all his skill and strength, but Godfrey, collecting all his force, sprang upon and literally felled him to the ground. Then taking his sword from him, he broke it across his knee,
- 47. and called upon the president of the duel to make such terms as would spare his enemy’s life. Again, a noble Arab, desirous of seeing so great a warrior, paid him a visit, and asked him, as a special favour, to strike a camel with his sword. Godfrey, at a single blow, struck off the head of the beast. The Arab begged to speak apart with him, thinking it was the effect of magic, and asked him if he would do the same thing with another sword. “Lend me your own,” said Godfrey, and repeated the feat with his guest’s own sword. At the time of his election, Godfrey was in the fulness of his strength and vigour, about forty years of age. He was tall, but not above the stature of ordinarily tall men; his countenance was handsome and attractive; and his beard and hair were a reddish brown. In manners he was courteous, and in living, simple and unostentatious. The first king of Christian Jerusalem, the only one of all the Crusaders whose life was pure, whose motives were disinterested, whose end and aim was the glory of God, was also the only king who came near the standard set up by Robert of Flanders, as one who should be foremost in virtue as well as in arms. The kingdom over which he ruled was a kingdom without frontiers, save those which the sword had made. Right and left of the path of the Crusaders, between Cæsarea and Jerusalem, the Saracens had fallen back in terror of the advancing army. The space left free was all that Godfrey could call his own. To the north, Bohemond held Antioch, Baldwin, Edessa, and Tancred was soon to occupy Galilee. Egypt threatened in the south, wild Bedawín in the east, and on the north and north-west were gathering, disorganized as yet, but soon to assume the form of armies, the fanatic Mohammedans, maddened by their loss. It must be remembered that during the whole eighty years of its existence the kingdom of Jerusalem was never for one single moment free from war and war’s alarms. At this time the joy of the soldiers was increased by the announcement made by a Christian inhabitant of Jerusalem that he had buried in the city, before the Crusaders came, a cross which contained a piece of the True Cross. This relic was dug up after a solemn procession, and borne in state to the Church of the Holy
- 48. Sepulchre, where it was intrusted to the care of Arnold, who had been appointed to act in the place of the patriarch. The appetite for relics had grown en mangeant. Besides the holy lance, and this piece of the True Cross, every knight, almost every common soldier, had been enabled to enrich himself with something precious—a bone or a piece of cloth, which had once belonged to a saint, a nail which had helped to crucify him, or the axe which had beheaded him. And there can be no doubt that the possession of these relics most materially helped to inspire them with courage. While the princes were still deliberating over the choice of a king, came the news that the Egyptian Caliph had assembled together a vast army, which was even then marching across the desert under the command of a renegade Armenian named Afdhal. He it was who had taken Jerusalem from the Turks only eleven months before the siege by the Crusaders. The army contained not only the flower of the Egyptian troops, but also many thousands of Mohammedan warriors from Damascus and Bagdad, eager to wipe out the disgrace of their defeats. Tancred, Count Eustace of Boulogne, and Robert of Flanders, sent forward to reconnoitre, despatched a messenger to Jerusalem with the news that this innumerable army was on its way, and would be, within a few days, at the very gates of the city. The intelligence was proclaimed by heralds through the city, and at daybreak the princes went bare-footed to the Church of the Sepulchre, where they received the Eucharist before setting out on their way to Ascalon. Peter the Hermit remained in charge of the women and children, whom he led round in solemn procession to the sacred sites, there to pray for the triumph of the Christian arms. Even at this solemn moment, when the fate of the newly-born kingdom trembled on the decision of a single battle, the chiefs could not abstain from dissensions. At the last moment, Robert of Normandy and Count Raymond declared that they would not go with the army; the former because his vow was accomplished, the latter because he was still sullen over the decision of the electors. But by the entreaties of their soldiers they were persuaded to yield. The Christian army collected
- 49. in its full force at Ramleh, attended by Arnold with the True Cross, whence they came to the Wady Sorek. The battle took place on the plain of Philistia, that lovely and fertile plain which was to be reddened with blood in a hundred fights between the Christians and their foes. The Christian army had been followed into the plain by thousands of the cattle which were grazing harmlessly over the country. The dust raised by the march of the men and beasts hung in clouds over these flocks and made the Egyptian army take them for countless squadrons of cavalry. Hasty arrangements were made. Godfrey took two thousand horse and three thousand foot to prevent a sortie of the inhabitants of Ascalon; Raymond placed himself near the seashore, between the fleet and the enemy; Tancred and the two Roberts directed the attack on the centre and right wings. In the first rank of the enemy were lines of African bowmen, black Ethiopians, terrible of visage, uttering unearthly cries, and wielding, besides their bows, strange and unnatural weapons, such as flails loaded with iron balls, with which they beat upon the armour of the knights and strove to kill the horses. The Christians charged into the thickest of these black warriors, taking them probably for real devils, whom it was a duty as well as a pleasure to destroy. A panic seized the Mohammedans; Robert Courthose, always foremost in the mêlée, found himself in the presence of Afdhal himself, and seized the grand standard. And then the Egyptians all fled. Those who got to the seashore fell into the hands of Raymond, who killed all, except some who tried to swim, and were drowned in their endeavours to reach their fleet; some rushed in the direction of Ascalon and climbed up into the trees, where the Christians picked them off with arrows at their leisure; and some, laying down their arms in despair, sat still and offered no resistance, while the Christians came up and cut their throats. Afdhal, who lost his sword in the rout, fled into Ascalon, and two thousand of his men, crowding after him, were trampled under foot at the gates. From the towers of Ascalon he beheld the total rout and massacre of his splendid army and the sack of his camp. “Oh, Mohammed,” cried the despairing renegade, “can it be true that the power of the Crucified
- 50. One is greater than thine?” Afdhal embarked on board the Egyptian fleet and returned alone. No one has told what was the loss sustained by the Mohammedans in this battle. They were mown down, it is said, like the wheat in the field; and those who escaped the sword perished in the desert. It is well observed by Michault, that this is the first battle won by the Christians in which the saints took no part. Henceforth Saint George appears no more. The enthusiasm of the soldiers was kindled by religious zeal, but it is kept alive henceforth by success. When success began to fail, religion could do nothing more for them. Raymond and Godfrey quarrelled immediately after the battle about the right of conquest over Ascalon, which Raymond wished to take for himself, and Godfrey claimed as his own. Raymond, in high dudgeon, withdrew, and took off all his troops, like Achilles. Godfrey was obliged to raise the siege of Ascalon, and followed him. On the way Raymond attacked the town of Arsûf, but meeting with a more determined resistance than he anticipated, he continued his march, maliciously informing the garrison that they had no reason to be afraid of King Godfrey. Consequently, when Godfrey arrived, they were not afraid of him, and gave him so warm a reception that he was obliged to give up the siege, and learning the trick that Raymond had played him, flew into so mighty a passion, that he resolved to terminate the quarrel according to European fashion. Tancred and the two Roberts used all their efforts to appease the two princes, and a reconciliation was effected between them. What is more important is, that the reconciliation was loyal and sincere. Raymond gave up all his schemes of ambition in Jerusalem; ceded all pretensions to the tower of David, over which he had claimed rights of conquest, and so long as he lived was a loyal supporter of the kingdom which he had so nearly obtained for himself. But Ascalon remained untaken, a thorn in the sides of the conquerors for many years to follow, and a standing reminder of the necessity of concord. The army returned to Jerusalem singing hymns of triumph, and entered the city with sound of clarion and display of their victorious
- 51. banners. The grand standard and the sword of Afdhal were deposited in the Church of the Sepulchre; and a great service of thanksgiving was held for their deliverance from the Egyptians. And then the princes began to think of going home again. They had now been four years away. Their vow was fulfilled. Jerusalem was freed from the yoke of the Mussulman, and they could no longer be restrained. Three hundred knights and two thousand foot-soldiers alone resolved to stay with Godfrey and share his fortunes. Among them was Tancred, almost as great a Christian hero as Godfrey himself. “Forget not,” those who remained cried with tears—these knights were not ashamed to show their emotion—to those who went away, “forget not your brethren whom you leave in exile; when you get back to Europe, fill all Christians with the desire of visiting those sacred places which we have delivered; exhort the warriors to come and fight the infidels by our side.” So went back the Crusaders, bearing each a palm-branch from Jericho, in proof of the accomplishment of their pilgrimage. It was but a small and miserable remnant which returned of those mighty hosts which, four years before, had left the West. There was not a noble family of France but had lost its sons in the great war; there was not a woman who had not some one near and dear to her lying dead upon the plains of Syria; not even a monk who had not to mourn a brother in the flesh or a brother of the convent. Great, then, must have been the rejoicing over those who had been through all the dangers of the campaign, and now returned bringing their sheaves with them;—not of gold, for they had none; nor of rich raiment, for they were in rags—but of glory, and honour, and of precious relics, better in their simple eyes than any gold, and more priceless than any jewels. With these and their palm-branches they enriched and decorated their native churches, and the sight of them kept alive the crusading ardour even when the first soldiers were all dead. Raymond of Toulouse went first to Constantinople, where Alexis received him with honour, and gave him the principality of Laodicea. Eustace of Boulogne went back to his patrimony, leaving his brothers in Palestine. Robert of Flanders went home to be drowned in the
- 52. Marne. Robert of Normandy, to eat out his heart in Cardiff Castle. Bohemond, Tancred, and Baldwin, with Raymond, remained in the East. The miserably small army left with King Godfrey would have ill- sufficed to defend the city, had it not been for the continual relays of pilgrims who arrived daily. These could all, at a pinch, be turned into fighting men, and when their pilgrimage was finished there were many who would remain and enter permanently into the service of the king. And this seems to have been the principal way in which the army was recruited. It was nearly always engaged in fighting or making ready for fighting, and without constant reinforcements must speedily have come to an end. A great many Christians settled in the country by degrees, and, marrying either with native Christians or others, produced a race of semi-Asiatics, called pullani,[55] who seem to have united the vices of both sides of their descent, and to have inherited none of the virtues. 55. Perhaps fulání, anybodies. So in modern Arabic the greatest insult you can offer a man is to call him, fulán ibn fulán, so and so, the son of so and so—i.e., a foundling or bastard. As for the people—not the Saracens, who, it must be remembered, were always the conquerors, but not always the settlers—we have little information about them. The hand of the Arab was against every man, and every man’s against his. When the pilgrims, it will be remembered, killed the sheikh at Ramleh, the Emir expressed his gratitude at being rid of his worst enemy. But, as to the villagers, the people who tilled the ground, the occupants of the soil, we know nothing of what race they were. It was four hundred years since the country had ceased to be Christian—it is hardly to be expected that the villagers were anything but Mohammedan. William of Tyre expressly calls them infidels, or Saracens, and they were certainly hostile. No Christian could travel across the country unless as one of a formidable party; and the labourers refused to cultivate the ground, in hopes of starving the Christians out: even in the towns, the walls were all so ruinous, and the defenders so few, that thieves and murderers entered by night, and no one lay down to
- 53. sleep in safety. The country had been too quickly overrun, and places which had surrendered in a panic, seeing the paucity of the numbers opposed to them, began now to think how the yoke was to be shaken off. It was at Christmas, 1099, that Baldwin of Edessa, Bohemond, and Dagobert, or Daimbert, Archbishop of Pisa, came to Jerusalem with upwards of twenty thousand pilgrims. These had suffered from cold and the attacks of Arabs, but had received relief and help from Tancred in Tiberias, and were welcomed by the king at the head of all his people, before the gates of the city. Arrived there, they chose a patriarch, electing Dagobert; and Arnold, who had never been legally elected, was deposed. They stayed during the winter, and gave the king their counsels as to the future constitution of his realm. Godfrey employed the first six months of the year 1100 in regulating ecclesiastical affairs, the clergy being, as usual, almost incredibly greedy, and in concluding treaties with the governors of Ascalon, Acre, Cæsarea, Damascus, and Aleppo. He was showing himself as skilful in administration as he had been in war, and the Christian kingdom would doubtless have been put upon a solid and permanent footing, but for his sudden and premature death, which took place on July the 18th, 1100. His end was caused by an intermittent fever; finding that there was little hope, he caused himself to be transported from Jaffa to Jerusalem, where he breathed his last. He was buried in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, where his epitaph might have been read up to the year 1808, when the church was destroyed by fire. “Hic jacet inclitus dux Godefridus de Bouillon, qui totam istam terram acquisivit cultui Christiano, cujus anima regnet cum Christo.” And here, too, were laid up his sword, more trenchant than Excalibur, and the knightly spurs with which he had won more honour than King Arthur. The Assises de Jerusalem, that most curious and instructive code of feudal law, does not belong properly to the reign of Godfrey. As it now exists it was drawn up in the fourteenth century. But it embodies, although it contains many additions and interpolations,
- 54. the code which Godfrey first began, and the following kings finished. And it is based upon the idea which ruled Godfrey and his peers. It may therefore fairly be considered in this place. It was highly necessary to have strict and clearly defined laws for this new kingdom. Its subjects were either pious and fanatic pilgrims, or unscrupulous and ambitious adventurers. Bishops and vassals, among whom the conquered lands were freely distributed, were disposed to set their suzerain at defiance, and to exalt themselves into petty kings. The pilgrims were many of them criminals of the worst kind, ready enough, when the old score was wiped out by so many prayers at sacred places, to begin a new one. They were of all countries, and spoke all languages. Their presence, useful enough when the Egyptian army had to be defeated, was a source of the greatest danger in time of peace. It is true that the time of peace was never more than a few months in duration. The duties and rights of king, baron, and bourgeois were therefore strictly and carefully laid down in Godfrey’s Assises. Every law was written on parchment, in great letters, the first being illuminated in gold, and all the others in vermilion; on every sheet was the seal of the king; the whole was deposited in a great box in the sacred church, and called the “Letters of the Sepulchre.” The duty of the king was to maintain the laws; to defend the church; to care for widows and orphans; to watch over the safety of the people; and to lead the army to war. The duty of the seigneur towards his people was exactly the same as that of the king; towards the king it was to serve him in war and by counsel. The duty of a subject to his lord was to defend and to revenge him; to protect the honour of his wife and daughters; to be a hostage for him in case of need; to give him his horse if he wanted one, or arms if he wanted them; and to keep faith with him. There were three courts of justice; the first presided over by the king, for the regulation of all differences between the great vassals; the second, formed of the principal inhabitants—a kind of jury—to maintain the laws among the bourgeoisie; and the third, reserved for the Oriental Christians, presided over by judges born in Syria.
- 55. The king, the summit of this feudal pyramid, who was wont to offer his crown at the Holy Sepulchre, “as a woman used to offer her male child at the Temple,” had immediately under him his seneschal, who acted as chief justice, chancellor of the exchequer, and prime minister. The constable commanded the army in the name of or in the absence of the king; he presided over the ordeal by battle, and regulated its administration. Under his orders was the marshal, who replaced him on occasion. The chamberlain’s duty was about the person of the king. As regards the power and duties of the barons, it was ruled that they were allowed, if they pleased, to give their fiefs to the church; that the fiefs should always descend to the male heir; that the baron or seigneur should succeed to a fief alienated by the failure on the part of the feudatory to perform his duties; that the baron should be the guardian of heirs male and female. These, if male, were to present themselves when the time came, saying, “I am fully fifteen years of age,” upon which he was to invest them; while maidens were to claim their fiefs at the age of twelve, on condition that they took a husband to protect it. Nor was any woman who remained without a husband to hold a fief until she was at least sixty years of age. In the ordeal of battle, the formula of challenge was provided, and only those were excused who had lost limbs, in battle or otherwise, women, children, and men arrived at their sixtieth year. In a criminal case death followed defeat; in a civil case, infamy. Slaves, peasants, and captives were, like cattle, subject only to laws of buying and selling. A slave was reckoned worth a falcon; two slaves were worth a charger; the master could do exactly as he pleased with his own slaves. They were protected by the natural kindness of humanity alone. In the days of its greatest prosperity the different baronies and cities of the kingdom of Jerusalem could be called upon to furnish in all three thousand seven hundred and twenty-nine knights. But this was after the time of Godfrey, the David of the new kingdom. Of course the seigneurs and barons took their titles from the places they held; thus we hear of the barony of Jaffa, of Galilee, of
- 56. Acre, and of Nablous; the seigneur of Kerak and of Arsûf. And thus in the soil of Palestine was planted, like some strange exotic, rare and new, the whole of the feudal system, with all its laws, its ideas, and its limitations. The news of the recovery of Jerusalem, and the return of the triumphant Crusaders, revived the flame of crusading enthusiasm, which in the space of four years had somewhat subsided. Those who had not followed the rest in taking the Cross reproached themselves with apathy; those who had deserted the Cross were the object of contempt and scorn. More signs appeared in heaven; flames of fire in the east—probably at daybreak; passage of insects and birds— emblematic of the swarms of pilgrims which were to follow. Only when the preachers urged on their hearers to take the Cross it was no longer in the minor key of plaint and suffering; they had risen and left the waters of Babylon; they had taken down their harps from the trees and tuned them afresh; they sang, now, a song of triumph; and in place of suffering, sorrow, and humiliation, they proclaimed victory, glory, and riches. It seemed better to a European knight to be Baron of Samaria than lord of a western state; imagination magnified the splendour of Baldwin and Tancred; things far off assumed such colours as the mind pleased; and letters read from the chiefs in Palestine spoke only of spoils won in battle, of splendid victories, and of conquered lands. Again the cry was raised of Dieu le veut, and again the pilgrims, but this time in a very different spirit, poured eastwards in countless thousands. The way was led by Hugh, Count of Vermandois and the unfortunate Stephen of Blois, whose lives had been a mere burden to them since their desertion of the Cross; the latter, who had little inclination for fighting of any kind, and still less for more hardships in the thirsty East, followed at the instigation of his wife Adela, daughter of William the Conqueror. Neither of them ever returned. William of Poitiers, like Stephen of Blois, a poet and scholar, mortgaged his estates to William Rufus, the scoffer, who, of course, was still lamentably insensible to the voice of the preacher—it must have been just before his death; Humbert of Savoy, William of Nevers, Harpin of Bourges, and Odo, Duke of Burgundy, followed his
- 57. example. In Italy the Bishop of Milan, armed with a bone of Saint Ambrose, led an army of one hundred thousand pilgrims, while an immense number of Germans followed the Marshal Conrad and Wolf of Bavaria. Most of the knights professed religious zeal; but hoped, their geographical knowledge being small, to win kingdoms and duchies like those of Baldwin and Tancred. Humbert of Savoy, more honest than the others, openly ordered prayers to be put up that he might obtain a happy principality. It does not appear from history that his petition was granted. The new army was by no means so well conducted as the old. Insolent in their confidence, and ill-disciplined, they plundered and pillaged wherever they came. They menaced Alexis Comnenus, and threatened to take and destroy the city. Alexis, it is said, but it is difficult to believe this, actually turned his wild beasts upon the mob, and his favourite lion got killed in the encounter. After prayers and presents, the Emperor persuaded his unruly guests to depart and go across the straits. Non defensoribus istis might have been the constant ejaculation of the much abused and long suffering monarch. Then they were joined by Conrad with his Germans and Hugh with his French. Their numbers are stated at two hundred and sixty thousand, among whom was a vast number of priests, monks, women, and children. Raymond of Toulouse, who was in Constantinople, undertook reluctantly to guide the army across Asia Minor, and brought with him a few of his Provençaux and a body of five hundred Turcopoles (these were light infantry, so called because they were the children of Christian women by Turkish fathers), the contingent of the Greek Emperor. But the army was too confident to keep to the old path. They would go eastward and attack the Turks in their strongest place, even in Khorassan itself. Raymond let them have their own way, doubtless with misgiving and anxiety, and went with them. The town of Ancyra, in Paphlagonia, was attacked and taken by assault. All the people were put to death without exception. They went on farther, exulting and jubilant. Presently they found themselves surrounded by the enemy, who appeared suddenly, attacked them in clouds, and
- 58. from all quarters. They were in a desert where there was little water, what there was being so rigorously watched over by the Turks that few escaped who went to seek it. They were marching over dry brushwood; the Turks set fire to it, and many perished in the flames or the smoke. There was but one thing to do, to fight the enemy. They did so, and though the victory seemed theirs, they had small cause to triumph, for division after division of their army had been forced to fly before the Turks. Still this might have been repaired. But in the night Count Raymond left them, and fled with his soldiers in the direction of Sinope. The news of this defection quickly spread. Bishops, princes, and knights, seized with a sudden panic, left baggage, tents and all, and fled away in hot haste. In the morning the Turks prepared again for battle. There was no enemy. In the camp was nothing but a shrieking, despairing multitude of monks, and women, and children. The Turks killed remorselessly, sparing none but those women who were young and beautiful. In their terror and misery the poor creatures put on hastily their finest dresses, in hopes by their beauty to win life at least, if life shameful, and hopeless, and miserable. “Alas!” says Albert of Aix, “alas! what grief for these women so tender and so noble, led into captivity by savages so impious and so horrible! For these men had their heads shaven in front, at the sides, and at the nape, the little hair left fell behind in disorder, and in few plaits, upon their necks; their beards were thick and unkempt, and everything, with their garments, gave them the appearance of infernal and unclean spirits. There were no bounds to the cries and lamentations of these delicate women; the camp re-echoed with their groans; one had seen her husband perish, one had been left behind by hers. Some were beheaded after serving to gratify the lust of the Turks; some whose beauty had struck their eyes were reserved for a wretched captivity. After having taken so many women in the tents of the Christians, the Turks set off in pursuit of the foot-soldiers, the knights, the priests, and the monks; they struck them with the sword as a reaper cuts the wheat with his sickle; they respected neither age nor rank, they spared none but those whom they destined to be soldiers. The ground was covered
- 59. with immense riches abandoned by the fugitives. Here and there were seen splendid dresses of various colours; horses and mules lay about the plain; blood inundated the roads, and the number of dead amounted to more than a hundred and sixty thousand.” As for the arm of St. Ambrose, that was lost too, and it doubtless lies still upon the plain beyond Ancyra, waiting to work more miracles. It is exasperating to find all the chroniclers, with the exception of Albert of Aix, passing over with hardly a word of sympathy the miserable fate of the helpless women, and pouring out their regrets over this trumpery relic. There was another army still, headed by the Duke of Nevers. They followed in the footsteps of their predecessors as far as Ancyra, where they turned southwards. Their fate was the same as that of the others: all were killed. The leader, who had fled to Germanicopolis, took some Greek soldiers as guides. These stripped him, and left him alone in the forest. He wandered about for some days, and at last found his way to Antioch, as poor and naked as any beggar in his own town. The third and last army, headed by the Count Hugh of Vermandois, met with a similar end. Thirst, heat, and hunger destroyed their strength, for the Turks had filled the wells, destroyed the crops, and let the water out of the cisterns. On the river Halys they met their end; William of Poitiers, like the Duke of Nevers, arrived naked at Antioch. The luckless Count of Vermandois got as far as Tarsus, where he died of his wounds, and poor Ida of Austria, who came, as she thought, under the protection of the pilgrims, with all her noble ladies, was never heard of any more. Of these three great hosts, only ten thousand managed to get to Antioch. Every one of the ladies and women who were with them perished; all the children, all the monks and priests. And of the leaders, none went back to Europe except the Count of Blandrat, who with the Bishop of Milan had headed the Lombards, the Duke of Nevers, and William of Poitiers, the troubadour. These were the last waves of the first great storm. With the last of these three great armies died away the crusading spirit proper—that which Peter the Hermit had aroused. There could be no more any
- 60. such universal enthusiasm. Once and only once again would all Europe thrill with rage and indignation. It had burned to wrest the city from the infidels; it was to burn once more, but this time with a feebler flame, and ineffectually, to wrest it a second time, when the frail and turbulent kingdom of Jerusalem should be at an end. We have dwelt perhaps at too great length on the great Crusade which really ended with the death of Godfrey. But the centre of its aims was Jerusalem. The Christian kingdom, one of the most interesting episodes in the history of the city, cannot be understood without knowing some of the events which brought it about. THE KINGS OF JERUSALEM Ida =Eustace de Bouillon Cousin to Hugh de Rethel. K. Godfrey. K. Baldwin I. Eustace. Matilda = King Stephen K. Baldwin of England du Bourg. K. Fulke=Milicent. Alice=Bohemond II. Hodierne=Raymond of Antioch. of Tripoli. Raymond K. Baldwin III.=Theodora K. Amaury=Agnes, d. Raymond of=Constance=Renaud de of Constantinople of Jocelyn II. Poitou, Chatillon. Bohemond III. K. Baldwin William of=Sybille=K. Guy de Homfray=Isabelle=K. Conrad de Montferrat. IV. Montferrat. Lusignan. de Toron K. Henry of Champagne. K. Amaury de Lusignan.
- 61. Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to specialized publications, self-development books, and children's literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system, we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and personal growth! ebookfinal.com