CHAP. I.]

ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM.

93

Bosio and even Seb, Paoli concur; but be it ob-served that, according to Lodge 1 and Sir HarrisNicolas, 2 the Montacute was an old English family-in 1168, earlier than the period we are treating of,and that they did not take the name of Montaiguuntil two centuries later, when they merged in theNevils and old Earls of Salisbury; so that, until thecontrary be decided by greater authorities (and thehistorians of the order cite none), I must certainlyvindicate the claim of England to the Grand MasterMontacute, and that he was no further a French-man than that his ancestors had been Normans.But at that time, if the Montaigus belonged toAuvergne, the Montacutes did to Wiltshire; andMontacute is the name in all the documents. Andhe had to exercise his diplomatic talents much, ina similar pacific way; but also in a sterner sort,for they were unhappy times, and the militaryorders were an exception to the surrounding de-generacy, which induced people easily to have smallregard for their oaths and break truces everymoment without compunction. Nor is it quiteclear whether Christians or Moslems were the firstin that respect, since mutual are the accusations;and it is painful to decide (without the fullest

1 Lodge : iv. 16.

2 Synopsis, 2.