philosophy and theology were antithetical and irreconcilable. Raymond declares that the book of Nature and the Bible are both Divine revelations, the one general and immediate, the other specific and mediate. The Editio Princeps of the book, which found many imitators, is undated but probably belongs to 1484; there are many subsequent editions, one by J. F. von Seidel as late as 1852. In 1595 the Prologus was put on the Index for its declaration that the Bible is the only source of revealed truth. Montaigne (Essays, bk. ii. ch. xii., " An Apologie of Raymond Sebond ") tells how he translated the book into French and found " the conceits of the author to be excellent, the contexture of his work well followed, and his project full of pietie. . . . His drift is bold, and his scope adventurous, for he undertaketh by humane and naturall reasons, to establish and verifie all the articles of Christian religion against Atheists."

See D. Beulet, Dn Inconnu celebre: recherches historiques et critiques sur Raymond de Sabunde (Paris, 1875).

RAYMUND, prince of Antioch (1099-1149), was the son of

William VI., count of Poitou. On the death of Bohemund II. of

Antioch (q.v.), the principality devolved upon his daughter,

Constance, a child of some three years of age (1130). Fulk,

the king of Jerusalem, and, as such, guardian of Antioch, was

concerned to find a husband for her, and sent envoys to England

to offer her hand to Raymund, who was then at the court of

Henry I. Raymund accepted the offer, and stealing in disguise

through southern Italy, for fear of apprehension by Roger of

Sicily, who claimed the inheritance of Antioch as cousin of

Bohemund I., he reached Antioch in 1135. Here he was married

to Constance by the patriarch, but not until he had done him

homage and fealty. The marriage excited the indignation

of Alice, the mother of Constance, who had been led by the

patriarch to think that it was she whom Raymund desired to

wed; and the new prince had thus to face the enmity of the

princess dowager and her party. In 1137 he had also to face

the advent of the eastern emperor, John Comnenus, who had

come south partly to recover Cilicia from Leo, the prince of

Armenia, but partly, also, to assert his rights over Antioch.

Raymund was forced to do homage, and even to promise to cede

his principality as soon as he was recompensed by a new fief,

which John promised to carve for him in the Mahommedan

territory to the east of Antioch. The expedition of 1138, in

which Raymund joined with John, and which was to conquer

this territory, naturally proved a failure: Raymund was not

anxious to help the emperor to acquire new territories, when

their acquisition only meant for him the loss of Antioch; and

John had to return unsuccessful to Byzantium, after vainly

demanding from Raymund the surrender of the citadel of

Antioch. There followed a struggle between Raymund and the

patriarch. Raymund was annoyed by the homage which he

had been forced to pay to the patriarch in 1135; and the dubious

validity of the patriarch's election offered a handle for opposition.

Eventually Raymund triumphed, and the patriarch was deposed

(1139). In 1142 John Comnenus returned to the attack; but

Raymund refused to recognize or renew his previous submission;

and John, though he ravaged the neighbourhood of Antioch,

was unable to effect anything against him. When, however

Raymund demanded from Manuel, who had succeeded John in

1143, the cession of some of the Cilician towns, he found that he

had met his match. Manuel forced him to a humiliating visit to

Constantinople, during which he renewed his oath of homagf

and promised to receive a Greek patriarch. The last event o

importance in Raymund's life was the visit to Antioch in 1148 o

Louis VII. and his wife Eleanor, Raymund's niece. Raymunc

sought to prevent Louis from going south to Jerusalem, and t<

induce him to stay in Antioch and help in the conquest of Alepp<

and Caesarea. Perhaps for this end he acquired an influenc

over his niece, which was by some interpreted as a guilt}

intimacy. At any rate Louis hastily left Antioch, and Raymuni

was balked in his plans. In 1149 he fell in battle durin

an expedition against Nureddin. Raymund is described b)

William of Tyre (the main authority for his career) as handsom

and affable; pre-eminent in the use of arms and military experi

nee; litteratorum, licet ipse illiteratus esset, cultor (he caused the Chanson des chetifs to be composed); a regular churchman and

faithful husband; but headstrong, irascible and unreasonable, vith too great a passion for gambling (bk. xiv. c. xxi.).

For his career see Rey, in the Revue de I'orient latin, vol. iv.

(E. BR.)

RAYMUND OF TOULOUSE (sometimes also called Raymund of ?t Giles, after a town to the south of Nimes), count of Provence, >ne of the leaders of the first Crusade. According to an Armenian authority, he had lost an eye on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem 'efore the first Crusade; but the statement probably rests on he fact that he was one-eyed, mr monoculus. He is also re-:orded to have fought against the Moors in Spain before 1096; Lnd it is certain that he was the first of the princes of the West .o take the cross after Pope Urban's sermon at Clermont. The oldest and the richest of the crusading princes, the count of Provence started, at the end of October 1096, with a large com->any, which included his wife, his son, and Adhemar, bishop of 3uy, the Papal Legate. His march lay by Ragusa and Scutari to Durazzo, whence he struck eastward, along the route also used by Bohemund, to Constantinople. At the end of April 1097 he was with difficulty induced to take a somewhat negative oath of fealty to Alexius; for the obstinacy which was one of lis characteristics, coupled perhaps with some hope of acquiring new territories, made him reluctant to submit like the other crusaders to Alexius. He was present at Nicaea and Dory-iaeum; but he first showed his hand in October 1097, when, as the army neared Antioch, and a rumour was spread that Antioch had been deserted by the Turks, he sent a detachment in advance to occupy the city—an action which presaged his future difficulties with Bohemund, the would-be prince of Antioch. In the siege of Antioch (which was far from having been deserted) Raymund played his part. When the city was taken by Bohemund (June 1098), the count garrisoned the palatium Cassiani (the palace of the emir, Yagi Sian) and the tower over the Bridge Gate. He lay ill during the second siege of Antioch by Kerbogha; but in his camp a great spiritualistic activity culminated in the discovery of the Holy Lance by the Provencals. The miracle stimulated the crusaders to defeat Kerbogha: the Lance itself, discovered by the Provencals and carried henceforward by their count, became a valuable asset in Raymund's favour; and he began to put difficulties in the way of Bohemund's retention of Antioch, obstinately alleging the oath to Alexius, and refusing to surrender the positions in the city which he had occupied. A struggle thus arose between the Provencals and the Normans, partly with regard to the genuineness of the Lance, which the Normans naturally doubted, and partly with regard to the possession of Antioch—the real issue at stake. Raymund was the first of the princes to leave Amioch, moving southward in the autumn of 1098 to the siege of Marra, but leaving a detachment of his troops in Antioch. With Bohemund left behind in Antioch; with the possession of the Holy Lance to give him prestige; and with the wealth which he had at his disposal, the count of Provence now definitely began to figure as the leader of the Crusade. If he could have consented to leave Bohemund in possession of Antioch and push southward, he might have achieved much. But he could not stomach the greatness of Bohemund; and when the Normans turned his troops out of Antioch in January 1099, he marched from Marra (which had been captured in December 1098) into the • emirate of Tripoli, and began the siege of Area (February 1099), evidently with the idea of founding a power in Tripoli which would check the expansion of Bohemund's principality to the south. The siege of Area was protracted; and the selfish policy of the count, which thus deferred the march to Jerusalem, lost him all support from the mass of the crusaders. A wave of indignation in the ranks, and the inducements which the emir of Tripoli offered to the other princes, forced Raymund to desist from the siege (May 1098), and to march southwards to Jerusalem. After the capture of Jerusalem, Raymund was offered, but refused, the advocacy of the Holy Sepulchre. He alleged his reluctance to rule in the city in which Christ had suffered;

it is perhaps permissible to suspect that he hankered for the principality of Tripoli and the renewal of hostilities with Bohemund. As at Antioch, so at Jerusalem, he fell into strife with the new ruler; and it was only with difficulty that Godfrey was able to secure from him the possession of the Tower of David, which he had originally occupied. The grasping nature of Raymund again appeared after the battle of Ascalon, when his eagerness to occupy Ascalon for himself prevented it from being occupied at all; while Godfrey also blamed him for the failure of his army to capture Arsuf. It almost seems as if the count could not appear without becoming a centre of storms; and when he went north, in the winter of 1099—f 100, his first act was one of hostility against Bohemund, from whom he helped to wrest Laodicea. From Laodicea he went to Constantinople, where he fraternized with Alexius, the great enemy of his own enemy Bohemund. Joining in the ill-fated Crusade which followed in the wake of the First, he was successful in escaping from the débdcle, and returning to Constantinople. In 1102 he came by sea from Constantinople to Antioch, .where he was imprisoned by Tancred, regent of Antioch during the captivity of Bohemund, and only dismissed upon promising not to attempt any conquests in the country between Antioch and Acre. He broke his promise, attacking and capturing Tortosa, and beginning to build a castle for the reduction of Tripoli (on the Mons Feregrinus). In this policy he was aided by Alexius, who was naturally willing to see the erection of a tributary county of Tripoli to the south of Boheinund’s principality. In ff05 Raymund died. He was succeeded by his nephew William, who in 1109, with the aid of Baldwin L, captured the town and definitely established the county of Tripoli. William was ousted in the same year by Raymund’s eldest son Bertrand; and the county continued in the possession of his house during the 12th century.i

Raymond of Toulouse represents the Provençal element in the first Crusade, as Bohemund represents the Norman, and Godfrey and Baldwin the Lotharingian. Religiosity, obstinacy and greed seem curiously blended in his composition. The hrst quality appears in the episode of the Lance, and in his renunciation of the advocacy of Jerusalem: the second appears in the whole of his attitude to Bohemund: the third appears again and again, whenever the progress of the Crusades brought any new conquest. If in temperament he is the least attractive among the princes of the first Crusade, he was yet one of its foremost leaders, and he left his mark upon history in the foundation of the county of Tripoli.

Raymtind of Agiles, a clerk in the Provençal army, gives the history of the first Crusade from his master’s point of view. For a modern account of Count Raymond’s part in the crusading movement, one may refer to Röhricht’s works (see~CRusADas).

(E. BR.)

RAYMUND OF TRIPOLI, the most famous of the descendants of Raymund of Toulouse, was a great-grandson of his eldest son Bertrand: his mother was Hodierna, a daughter of Baldwin II., and through her he was closely connected with the kings of Jerusalem. He became count of Tripoli in 1152, on the assassination of his father. In 1164 he was captured by Nureddin, and was only released in 1172 after a captivity of eight years. In I 174 hn claimed the regency on behalf of Baldwin IV. (at once a minor and a leper), in virtue of his close relationship; and the claim was acknowledged. After two years the regency seems to have passed to Reginald of Châtillon; but Raymond, who had married the heiress of the county of Tiberias, continued to figure in the affairs of the kingdom. His great ability procured him enemies; for two years, 1180—1182, Baldwin IV. was induced by evil advisers to exclude him from his territories. But as Saladin grew more threatening, Raymund grew more indispensable; and in 1184 he became regent for Baldwin V., on condition that, if the king died before his majority, his successor should be determined by the great powers of the West. Raymund conducted the regency with skill, securing a truce from

‘For the future history of the county, see under RAYMUND OF TRIPOLI andB0uEMUND Iv.

Saladin ~n. 1185; but when Baldwin V. died, in 1186, all went wrong. Raymund summoned an assembly of the barons to Naplous to deliberate on the situation; but while they deliberated, the supporters of Guy de Lusignan (the husband of Baldwin IV.’s sister, Sibylla) acted, and had him crowned, in defiance of the stipulation under which Raymond had become regent. The rest of the barons came over to Guy; and Raymund, left in isolation, retired to Tiberias and negotiated a truce for himself with Saladin. His ambiguous position led contemporaries to accuse him of treasonable correspondence with Saladin; but his loyalty to the Christian cause was nobly shown in 1187, when he reconciled himself to Guy, and aided him in the battle of Hattin, which was engaged, however, in the teeth of his earnest advice. He escaped from the battle wounded, and ultimately retired to Tripoli, where he died (1187).

In the corrupt society of the latter days of the kingdom of Jerusalem, Raymond showed himself at least as disinterested as any other man, and certainly more capable than the rest of his contemporaries. He might have saved Jerusalem, if Jerusalem could have been saved; but his was the vox clamantis in deserto. “He is worthy of the throne,” wrote a contemporary Arabic chronicler: “ he seems destined for it by nature, who has given him pre-eminent wisdom and courage.” (E. BR.)

RAYNAL, GUILLAUME THOMAS FRANCOIS (1713-1796),

French writer, was born at Saint- Geniez in Rouergue on the 12th of April 1713. He was educated at the Jesuit school of Pézenas, and received priest’s orders, but he was dismissed for unexplained reasons from the parish of 5° int-Sulpice, Paris, to which he was attached, and thenceforward iiu devoted himself to society and literature. The Abbé Raynal wrote for the Mercure de France, and compiled a series of popular bu~ superficial works, which he published and sold himself. These— L’Histoire du stathoudérat (The Hague, 1748), L’Histoire du parlement d’Angleterre (London, 1748), Anecdotes historiques (Amsterdam, 3 vols., 1753)—gained for him access to the salons of Mme. Geoffrin, Helvétius, and the baron d’Holbach. He had the assistance of various members of the pizilosophe coteries in his most important work, L’Histoire philosophique et politique des établissements et du commerce des Euro peens dans les deux Indes (Amsterdam, 4 vols., 1770). Diderot indeed is credited with a third of this work, which was characterized by Voltaire as “du réchauffé avec de Ia declamation.” The other chief collaborators were Pechméja, Holbach, Paulze, the farmergeneral of taxes, the Abbé Martin, and Alexandre Deleyre. To this piecemeal method of composition, in which narrative alternated with tirades on political and social questions, was added the further disadvantage of the lack of exact information, which, owing to the dearth of documents, could only have been gained by person.al investigation. The “philosophic” declamations perhaps constituted its chief interest for the general public, and its significance as a contribution to democratic propaganda. The Histoire went through many editions, being revised and augmented from time to time by Raynal; it was translated into the principal European languages, and appeared in various abridgments. Its introduction into France was forbidden in 1779; the book was burned by the public executioner, and an order was given for the arrest of the author, whose name had not appeared in the first edition, but was printed on the title page of the Geneva edition of 1780. Raynal escaped to Spa, and thence to Berlin, where he was coolly received by Frederick the Great, in spite of his connexion with the philosophe party. At St Petersburg he met with a more cordial reception from Catherine II., and in 1787 he was permitted to return to France, though not to Paris. He showed generosity in assigning a considerable income to be divided annually among the peasant proprietors of upper Guienne. He was elected by Marseilles to the States-general, but refused to sit on the score of age. Raynal now realized the impossibility of a peaceful revolution, and, in terror of the proceedings for which the writings of himself and his friends had prepared the way, he sent to the Constituent Assembly an address, which was read on the 31st of May 179r, deprecating the violence of its reforms. This address is said