Part 4

Is not Mamestia the ancient Hamaxia? “Εἶθ Ἁμαξία ἐπὶ βουνοῦ κατοικία τις,” says Strabo, ὕφορμον ἔχουσα, ὅπου κατάγεται ἡ ναυπηγήσιμος ὕλη, (vol. iii. 221 ed. Tauchn.) It is certainly the Malmestra of the Latins and Byzantines. This town is called Mesuestra, Masifa, and by other names. (Wesseling Itner, p. 580. See a note of Gibbon at the end of the 52d chapter.) Tarsus is very well known as the principal town of Cilicia, as the native place of many celebrated men, as the stoic Chrysippus, and of the Apostle Paul. The following passage of Xenophon’s Expedition of Cyrus illustrates very well the province and the whole history of the Armenian kingdom of Cilicia. “Thence they prepared to penetrate into Cilicia; the entrance was just broad enough for a chariot to pass, very steep, and inaccessible to an army, if there had been any opposition.... From thence they descended into a large and beautiful plain, well watered and full of all sorts of trees and vines; abounding in sesame, panic, millet, wheat and barley; and is surrounded with a strong and high ridge of hills from sea to sea. After he had left the mountains he advanced through the plain, and having made twenty-five parasangas in four days’ march, arrived at Tarsus,” etc. (See Spelman’s notes to his translation of the Expedition of Cyrus.) Tarsus has now only, as it is said, 3,000 inhabitants.

Note (25), page 30.

The Armenian phrase has this double signification, and Leon indeed carried on a war against the Seldjuks and the Count of Antioch, who sought to deprive him by treachery of all his possessions. Baldwin was not ashamed of doing any thing to enlarge his dominions. I know not why Vahram speaks not a word about these matters. (See Chamchean, l. c. p. 301.)

Note (26), page 30.

The old fabulous hero of Armenia, spoken of by Moses of Khorene.

Note (27), page 31.

Gibbon, iii. 341.

Note (28), page 31.

Joscelin I., Count of Edessa. (See the Digression on the Family of Courtnay.—Gibbon, iv. 224.) Why does not Vahram, where he speaks of the four sons of Leon, name this Stephanus, who lived in Edessa with his uncle? It seems that there is a corruption in the text. Should the name of _Stephanus_ be hidden under _Stephane, the crown_ of Thoros, or which is more probable, is a line fallen out of our text? It would be necessary to compare some manuscripts to restore the original text. Thoros never received the kingly crown; he was only Baron of Cilicia: _Stephane_ seems, therefore, nothing else than _Stephanus_.

Note (29), page 32.

This agrees with all that we know about the character of Calo-Johanes. “Severe to himself, indulgent to others, chaste, frugal, abstemious, the philosophic Marcus would not have disdained the artless virtues of his successor, derived from his heart, and not borrowed from the schools.”—(Gibbon.)

Note (30), page 32.

I am not able to look into the Byzantine version of this fact. Calo-Johanes was not the man to be easily deceived, and to persecute innocent persons; we know, on the contrary, that he pardoned many people implicated in high treason. Calo-Johanes, as Camchean says (l. c. 304), suspected also Leon and his other son Thoros, and they were again sent to prison.

Note (31), page 34.

Our author has here the word _Tadjik_, a name by which he and the other Armenian historians of the middle ages promiscuously call the native Persians, the Gasnevides and the other Turks. The origin and the proper meaning of this word will perhaps never be ascertained; it has something of the vagueness of the ancient denomination of _Scythia_ and _Scythians_. It is certain that, in the works which go under the name of Zoroaster, and in the Desatir, the Arabs are called _Tazi_, and it is likewise certain that the language of this people, which is now called _Tadjik_, is pure Persian; the Bochars are, in their own country, called Tadjiks. How and why the ancient Persian name of the Arabs should be given to the Persians themselves it is impossible to conceive. Elphinstone (Account of the Kingdom of Câbul, London 1819, vol. i. 492) thinks that the Arabs and Persians were, in the course of time, blended together into one nation, and became the ancestors of the Tadjiks; but why should Armenians, Arabs, Turks and Afghauns, call those mestizes with a name of the Pehlvi language, which means originally an Arab? It seems rather that _Tazi_ and _Tadjik_ are two different words; _Tazi_ is the Persian name for _Arab_, and _Tadjik_ the name of a particular race of people, of whom the Persians are only a tribe. I do not know on what authority Meninski (see Klaproth’s Asia, Polygl. 243) relies, but it is certain that the Chinese distinguish between the _Ta she_ (Arabs) and the _Ta yue_ (the Tadjiks), of whom, as they say, the Po she (Persians) are only a tribe. The Chinese had no communication with the Arabs before Mahomed, but they heard of them by their intercourse with the Sassanides, and call them, therefore by the Persian name Ta she (9685, 9247), but the _Po se_ (8605, 9669) are only, as they say, a tribe like some other tribes, who formed particular kingdoms of the Ta yue (9685, 12490), or Tadjiks. They have received the name _Po sse_ from their first king, _Po sse na_; but the Chinese had no direct communication with Persia before Kobad or Cabades, Kiu ho to (6063, 3984, 10260), as they spell the name, in their imperfect idiom, who became known to them by his flight and misfortunes. (See Matuanlin, l. c. Book 338, p. i, and following; Book 339, p. 6 a., p. 8 a., and the history of the _Ta she_ or Arabs, p. 18, b. l. c.) But I am in doubt of Matuanlin, who makes the Masdeizans, followers of Buddha; he calls the Ateshgahs _Fo sse_ (2539, 9659), Temples of Buddha, (l. c. p. 6, b. l. 5.) The popular pronunciation of _Ta yue_ is, in many Chinese dialects, _Tai yuet_. I myself have often heard these characters so pronounced in Canton, and it was then as nearly as possible the ancient name of the Germans, _Teut_, the brethren of the Persians; the Chinese know also that the Ye ta (12001, 9700), _Getae_, _Gothi_, belong to the race of the Tayuet (Matuanlin, Book 338, p. 11), &c. But what sober historian would draw conclusions from a similarity of names? Perhaps a close inquiry may carry us to some leading facts, by which we may be able to connect the information of the east and the west. It would certainly be strange to begin the history of the Germans with the extracts taken out of the Han and Tang shoo. When I say the history of the Germans, I mean the history of those remains of the Teuts who remained in Asia, for Germany was certainly peopled long before the Chinese got any information of the Ta yue. These races became only known in China under the great dynasty of Han. A keen etymologist may, perhaps, find the modern Tadjiks in the ancient Daai or Daae; he may suppose that the Persians, like the Parthians, were only a branch of the Scythians or Tatars, and with confidence adduce a passage of Strabo, where it is said that the greater part of the Scythians are known by the name of Daai, Οἱ μὲν δὴ πλείους τῶν Σκυθῶν Δάαι προσαγορεύονται. (Strabo, Geogr. xi. 8, vol. ii. 430, ed. Tauchn.) I will only add, that the same Strabo thinks, that the Daci (Δάκοι) may in former times have been called Daï (Δάοι), but he distinguishes them from the Daae (Δάαι). (Vol. ii. 36.)

Note (32), page 34.

Only the wounded pride of an Armenian could say this.

Note (33), page 34.

Have any of our modern travellers seen this monument? Claudian, the famous Latin poet, had composed in Greek the Antiquity of Tarsus, Anazarbus, Berytus, Nice, &c. Abul Fazel (Ayeen Akbery, ii. 348) places Tarsus long. 68° 40´, lat. 36° 50´. (See Note 24.)

Note (34), page 35.

The Armenians did so in imitation of the neighbouring Franks; they took many customs from the Crusaders, and corrupted their language by the introduction of many foreign words.

Note (35), page 35.

Is this surname of Manuel found in the Byzantine writers?

Note (36), page 36.

Vahram is in the wrong; Andronicus, not Manuel himself was at the head of the army. (Chamchean, 306; Gibbon, iii. 344.) Thoros was on such rocks, as Xenophon in the Anabasis, speaking of the rocks of Cilicia, calls πέτρας ἠλιβάτους, “rocks inaccessible to every thing but to the rays of the sun.” Homer makes often use of this expression.

Note (37), page 36.

This is a very obscure passage in the original. Vahram is no friend of details, and he is every moment in need of a rhyme for _eal_; who can wonder, therefore, that he is sometimes obscure? This passage is only clear, upon the supposition that Thoros divided the ransom among his soldiers. This is also stated by Chamchean.

See Note 28.

Note (38), page 37.

I do not know why Vahram calls Thoros all on a sudden _Arkay_, “king;” how the royal secretary exerts himself to draw a veil over the treachery of Thoros!

Note (39), page 38.

Oscin is the father of a celebrated author and priest, Nerses Lampronensis, so called from the town or fort Lampron; he was born 1153, and died 1198. In the concilium of Romcla 1179, Nerses spoke for the union with the Latin church, and the speech he made on this occasion is very much praised by the Armenians belonging to the Roman Catholic Church. This speech has been printed at Venice with an Italian translation, 1812. (Quadro 94.) Galanus, as the reader may easily imagine, speaks in very high terms of Nerses (i. 325): “Cujus egregia virtus,” says he, “digna plane est, ut acterna laude illustretur, nomenque ad ultimas terrarum partes immortali fama pervehatur.” For us his most interesting work is an elegy on the death of his parent, master, and friend, Nerses Shnorhaly; he gives a biography of this celebrated Catholicus, with many particulars of the history of the time. Nerses Shnorhaly was not only an author and a saint, but also a great statesman.

Note (40), page 38.

In the whole course of history the Armenian nobles shew a great party feeling and much selfishness. They were never united for the independence of their country; if one part was on the side of the Persians or Turks, we shall certainly find another on the side of the Greeks or Franks; and the native Armenian kings had more to fear from their internal, than from their external enemies.

Note (41), page 38.

The history of the foundation of the Armenian kingdom in Cilicia is very like the history of the rebellious Isaurians, “who disdained to be the subjects of Galienus.” Thoros possessed a part of this savage country; and we may say of him, what Gibbon said of the Isaurians: “The most successful princes respected the strength of the mountains and the despair of the natives.” (Gibbon, iii. 51.)

Note (42), page 38.

Iconium is mentioned as a station by Xenophon and Strabo; Cyrus staid three days in “this last city of Phrygia.” St. Paul found there many Jews and Gentiles; and it is said that even now, in its decayed state, Conia or Iconium has 30,000 inhabitants. This town is above 300 miles from Constantinople. (Gibbon, iv. 152.) The chronology of the Seljuks of Iconium may be seen in the _Histoire des Huns, par Deguignes_. Kuniyah ‎‏قونيا‏‎ is laid down by Abul Fazel (Ayeen Akbery, ii. 359), long. 66. 30., and lat. 41. 40. A description of the modern Konia may be seen in Col. Leake’s Asia Minor, l. c. 223.

Note (43), page 40.

I find him not mentioned as an author in the “Quadro della storia letteraria di Armenia.” It seems that his explanations of the prophets are now lost. If the reader will compare the elogy of Thoros with the facts in Vahram’s own chronicle, he will easily find that adulation, and not truth, dictated it.

Note (44), page 40.

_Seav_ or _Sev-learn_, _Black-mountain_ (Karadagh). Here was a famous monastery. _Carmania_ is the place which formerly was called Laranda, and this name is still, as Col. Leake remarks, in common use among the Christians, and is even retained in the firmans of the Porte. Caraman derives its name from the first and greatest of its princes, who made himself master of Iconium, Cilicia, etc. (Col. Leake’s Asia Minor, l. c. p. 232.)

Note (45), page 40.

An allusion to Ierem, i. 13.

Note (46), page 40.

It is known that the feudal laws and institutions have been introduced into the possessions of the Franks in Asia. _Baillis_, or _Baillie_, written _Bail_ in the Armenian language, means a judge, and the word is commonly found in this signification in the chronicles and histories of the middle ages. The _Baillis_ possessed powers somewhat similar to those of the ancient _Comites_. We see here and in other instances, that the Baillis are older than the end of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth century. At this time they began in France. (Robertson, note 23, to his View of the State of Europe before the History of the reign of the Emperor Charles V.)

Note (47), page 41.

It is very probable that the murderer Andronicus and Meleh were acquainted with each other; their history and their crimes are something similar.

Note (48), page 43.

Roustam was a Sultan of Iconium. (See the Chronology of these Sultans in Deguigne’s Histoire des Huns.)

Note (49a), page 43.

In the times of the Crusades, wonders and witchcraft or enchantment were daily occurrences; the Christians imputed all their defeats to diabolical opposition, and their success to the assistance of the military saints, Tasso’s celebrated poem gives a true picture of the spirit of the times.

Note (49b), page 43.

Here the author uses again _Tadjik_ as the name of a particular people: but accuracy, I fear, is not the virtue of Vahram; he calls the Turks of Iconium, the sons of Ismael or Hagar, _i.e._ Arabs.

Note (50), page 43.

Our author says not in what province these towns lay. Chamchean, being able to consult other native historians, informs us that Leon nearly took Cæsarea in Palestine.—Heraclea was perhaps also the town of this name in Palestine; it was a small town near Laodicæa in the time of Strabo. Τῇ Λαοδικεία πλησιάζει πολίχνια, τὸ, τε Ποσείδιον καὶ Ἡράκλειον.—Strabo iii. 361, ed. Tauchn.

Note (51), page 43.

The old Samaria, called Cæsarea by Herodes, ἤν Ἡρώδης Σεβαςὴν ἐπωνόμασεν, Strabo iii. 372. See the description of this famous place in Carl Ritler’s Erdkunde ii. 393. Chamchean, 315. Abul Eazel (Ayeen Akbery, ii. 337.) places it long. 66. 30. lat. 32. 50.

Note (52), page 44.

This memorable transaction is fully described in the great History of Armenia by Chamchean, and in the work of Galanus, vol. i. p. 346 and following. Many letters of Leon and the Catholicos exist now only in the Latin translations (Quadro l. c. 99.), or better have not been heard of by the Mechitarists at Venice. Frederic I., to whom Leon was very useful in the time of the second crusade, promised the Baron of Cilicia to restore in his person the ancient kingdom of Armenia. After the unfortunate death of the emperor, Leon sent ambassadors to the Pope Celestinus III. and Henricus VI., to gratify his wishes; the ambassadors came back to Cilicia in the society of the archbishop Conrad of Mentz, bringing the crown from the emperor and the benediction of the pope. The Emperor of Constantinople, Alexius, sent also a crown to Leon “the Great.” The king of Cilicia is, as far as I know, the only king who received the crown by both the emperors of the west and the east, and by the consent of the pope. The pope hoped to bring the Armenians under his sway, and the Latins and the Greeks thought Leon a very useful ally against the overpowering Saladin.—See the Letters in the Appendix.

Note (53), page 44.

_Catholicos of Armenia_ is the title of the Armenian patriarch. Gregorius VI., called Abirad, was Catholicos at this time; he was elected in the year 1195, and died 1203. The Latins had a very high opinion of the power of an Armenian patriarch. Wilhelm of Tyrus, speaking (De Bello Sacro, xvi. 18.) of the synod of Jerusalem in the year 1141, has the following words: “Cui synodo interfuit maximus Armeniorum pontifex, immo omnium episcoporum Cappadociæ, Mediæ et Persidis et utriusque Armeniæ princips et doctor eximius qui _Catholicus_ dicitur.” Wilhelm might add, “et Indiæ,” for I think that the Armenians, like the Syrians, formed as early as the sixth century of our era, settlements in this part of the world. It is certain that Armenians were in India as early as the year 800. (_De Faria_, in the _Collection of Voyages and Travels_, by Kerr, Edinburgh 1812, vol. vi. p. 419.)

Note (54), page 44.

The Armenians consider themselves the descendants of _Thorgoma_ (a name differently spelt in the different manuscripts and translations of Genesis x. 3.) the son of Japet.

Note (55), page 44.

Vahram is too concise; he never gives the reasons of occurrences. I see, in Chamchean, that Leon married, after the death of his first wife, a daughter of Guido, king of Cyprus, by whom he had a daughter, called Sabel or Elizabeth, his only child and heiress of the kingdom. The Sultan of Ionium did not like these intimate connexions of the Armenians with the Latins; he feared some coalition against himself, and he thought it proper to be beforehand with the enemy.

Note (56), page 45.

We have in the text again _Bail_ or _Bailly_. I could not translate the word otherwise than _Regent_: this is certainly the sense in which Vahram uses this expression.

Note (57), page 46.

The name of this first husband of Isabella was Philippus, the son of the Prince of Antioch and the niece of Leon. Philippus died very soon, and Isabella, as our author says himself, married, 1223, the son of the regent Constantine, Hethum or Haithon.

Note (58), page 46.

This Rouben was of the royal family.—Chamchean, 326.

Note (59), page 46.

It would carry us too far if we were to attempt to elucidate the ecclesiastical history of these times, for there were many synods and many negotiations between the Armenian clergy and the Greek and Latin church, concerning the union. Pope Innocent III. showed also at this opportunity his well-known activity. There exist many letters from the Catholici and the Armenian kings to different popes and emperors, with their answers,—ample matter for a diligent historian. The first Gregorius after Nerses is Gregorius IV. from 1173-1193. Gregorius V. from 1193-1195. Gregorius VI. from 1195-1202. John VII. from 1202-1203. David III. from 1203-1205, and then again John VII. 1205-1220. Constantine I. from 1220-1268. There were yet two anti-Catholici, elected by a dissentient party, who are not mentioned by Vahram.

Note (60), page 47.

The good Vahram seems to have forgotten what he said a short time before. I do not know by what genealogy Chamchean could be induced to say that Hethum is an offspring of Haig and the Parthian kings.

Note (61), page 48.

The flattery of Vahram increases as he comes nearer to his own time. I have sometimes taken the liberty to contract a little these eulogies; the reader will certainly be thankful for it.

Note (62), page 48.

In the battle against the Mameluks of Egypt in the year 1266.

Note (63), page 48.

The Moguls are a branch, a tribe, or a clan of the Tatars; so say all well-informed contemporary historians and chroniclers; so say in particular the Chinese, who are the only sources for the early history of the Turks, the Moguls, and Tunguses; nations which, in general, from ignorance or levity, have been called _Tatars_—the Moguls only are Tatars. The Armenians write the name _Muchal_; in our text of Vahram, _Muchan_ has been printed by mistake. That this people was called so from their country is quite new; and if this were the case, it would be still a question why the territory was called _Mogul_. There are sometimes such whimsical reasons for the names of places and nations, as to defy the strictest research and the greatest curiosity. The name of _Mogul_ seems not to be older than Tshinggis, and Mr. Schmidt in St Petersburgh, derives the word from a Mongolian word, which means _keen_, _daring_, _valiant_. The ancient name of the Moguls, as it is given by the native historian Sätzan, is, I am afraid, only a mistake of this ignorant chieftain. His whole history of the Moguls is only a very inaccurate compilation from Chinese authors, and the unlettered Mogul may have taken the appellative expression pih teih 8539, 10162, or pih too 10313, 8539, “northern barbarians” or “northern country,” for the proper name of his forefathers. Long before the Moguls, the Chinese became acquainted with some barbarous tribes called by different names, and also _Mo ho_; but the Chinese authors, who are so accurate in giving the different names of one and the same people, never say that the _Mung koo_, who are also written with quite different characters, are called _Mo ho_, or _vice versâ_. These Mo ho are described as quite a distinct people, with a particular language, divided into different clans or kingdoms. There is an interesting description of this people under the name of Wŭh keih 14803, 5918, in the Encyclopædia of Matuanlin, Book 326, p. 146. The same author says, in the sequel of his great work, that the Kitans have nearly the same customs (sŭh 9545) as the Mo ho, but he does not say that they are of the same race of people.—Matuanlin, Book 345, in the beginning. The different names of the Mo ho are also collected in Kanghi’s Dictionary under hŏ, a character not to be found in Morrison’s Tonical Dictionary; it is composed out of the rad. 177, and the sound giving group hŏ, 4019, and there also exists no passage saying Mo ho and Mung koo are one and the same people.

Note (64), page 49.

Vahram speaks of the four sons of Tshinggis. The army of the Moguls and of Timur (see his Institutes, p. 229 foll.) was divided into divisions of 10, 100, 1000, &c. The ten followers were the ten first officers or “Comites,” as Tacitus calls the compeers of the German princes. Similar customs are always found in a similar state of society.

Note (65), page 49.

Vahram confounds probably the first election of the Emperor Cublai, with the election of his follower Mangou, to whose residence at Caracorum the King of Cilicia, Hethum, went as a petitioner. Vahram knows that the title of the head of the Mongolian confederacy is Teen tze, 10095, 11233, “the son of Heaven.” The Mongolian emperors have only been called so, after the conquest of China by Cublai. _Teen tse_ is the common title of the Emperor of the “Flowery empire.” According to other accounts, Tshinggis called himself already “Son of Heaven.”

Note (66), page 49.

To Mangou khan; we know this by other contemporary historians. There exist some Armenian historians in the 13th century, who contain a good deal of information regarding the Moguls. One is printed in the Mémoires sur l’Arménie, by Saint-Martin. See Quadro della Storia, &c. p. 112, and following.

Note (67), page 49.

Is this treaty to be any where found? It would certainly be very interesting. Vahram has the word _kir_, by which it is certain that Hethum I. returned with a written treaty, which very probably was written in the Mogulian language, and with the Mogulian characters.

Note (68), page 49.

Vahram has again the unsettled and vague name of Tadjik.

Note (69), page 49.

Vahram died before the beginning of the glory of Othman, and of the increasing power of his descendants; he speaks of the fading state of the Seljuks of Iconium.

Note (70), page 50.

I have taken the liberty to shorten a little the pious meditations of our author; he would have done better to give us some details regarding the interesting transactions with the Moguls.

Note (71), page 50.