family, but confiding in God, he took away only their castles, and
granted them their lives; he left it to the Lord to reward them after
their designs. [Sidenote: 1274] Now the Sultan of Egypt, breaking the
treaty he made with King Hethum, came against this country; he did not
so much as give any notice of his design. United with the Arabs and the
Turcomans, the Sultan, without any one being aware of it, made an inroad
into Cilicia. These Turcomans were a long time since in this country as
shepherds; they here kept their winter quarters, and knew therefore all
the passes and defiles.(80) [Sidenote: 1276] United with these people
the Egyptians harassed the country more than had ever been the case
before; they penetrated into the mountains, discovered the recesses of
men and beasts, and destroyed numbers; many were also killed who had
been found in the flat country. Only those who were in forts and castles
escaped, all the rest were taken. The country was surrounded on all sides
and given to the flames; the enemy took Tarsus, burnt the beautiful and
celebrated church of St. Joseph, and plundered the town; having done all
this mischief, they retired.
King Leon, full of courage, wished to try the chance of a battle, but the
barons left him and he had only a few soldiers; seeing the desolation
of the country, he was very sorrowful, but consoled every body and
encouraged the people by presents. Whilst he was sustaining these trials
without scarcely uttering a sigh, one of his sons, of tender age, died,
and he himself fell into a sickness from which he could scarcely be
saved. Whilst yet depressed by his sufferings he lost a daughter, but
through all this he became not impatient, and uttered not an angry word;
he placed his confidence in God, and suffered his trials with calmness.
But there remained yet another trial for the country at large; the
country was visited by a heavy plague, of which many poor people died,
so that the land could not be cultivated, and there was in consequence a
want of the necessaries of life. The king did not let his spirits droop,
he animated everybody, and said in the words of Job, “The Lord gave, and
the Lord hath taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord! Naked came
we into the world, and naked do we leave it again.” [Sidenote: 1276] In
these days the Lord began to look on us again with kindness from above,
and the words of the prophet Hosea were fulfilled, “The shadow of death
fled from us miserable men;” the Lord became reconciled to the harassed
and desolated nation of Armenia. For the beginning of better days we were
indebted to the people, who made war against the king. Having plundered
our country, the Sultan withdrew his army, but Leon then came forward,
vanquished all his opponents, took a great booty and returned joyful into
his own kingdom.(81) The Sultan of Egypt hearing this, sent a message
to Leon for peace and friendship. The news of these victories spread
very far, so that the Khan(82) heard of it, sent armour and weapons, and
admonished Leon to carry on the war.
The Turks, who reign in Camir (Iconium), wished at this time to make a
treaty with the Moguls to hurt us; they spoke in consequence very badly
of us, and induced the Khan by a sum of money to make a treaty with
them.(83) The Turks spoke then more freely, and accused us publicly,
but they were soon undeceived; for as soon as the union was dissolved,
the Moguls came and destroyed them by the sword, sent presents to our
king, and behaved in general very kindly to him. By this behavior the
king gained courage, made an incursion into Turkestan,(84) took a large
booty and returned into his own country with great joy. The neighbouring
kings hearing this were much astonished, and longed to be at peace with
us. Leon forgot all the mischief they had done, and accepted with a kind
heart their offerings of friendship; for he was benevolent by nature, and
rejoiced in kind dealings; misfortune could not depress him, and good
fortune could not elevate him; he looked only on God and to govern his
country well.
Leon had three sons: Hethum, the first born, learned in the Scripture
and clever in every branch of science; the second is called Thoros, and
the third Sempad. The spouse of the king, the Queen Ceran, is famous for
her fidelity and benevolence. So is our king, who by God’s decree is
placed over the country; may the Lord yet grant him a long and a peaceful
reign.(85)
Now to the end of my work I will subjoin some observations. It has been
said before, that when the Tadjiks came into our country, they burned the
house of God;—that they took the crosses, the Scriptures, and all other
holy materials, into their abominable hands and cast them into the fire
with infamous jokes; and that they put the priests to the sword, and
tortured all Christians. When all these misfortunes befell the country,
some of the inhabitants bore them patiently, though reluctantly; and
others became furious and uttered impious words, for they were blind
in spirit and weak in faith. “Can this be,” said they, “can this be a
true judgment, by which we are condemned? Are we the only sinners of
all the inhabitants of the world, that we alone should be ruined? or
are the Tadjiks the men of righteousness, by whose hands we are killed:
those unbelievers, soiled by every wicked deed?” But from this reasoning
it would follow, that those who fell under the hall by which Sampson
buried himself, were not killed by reason of their own sins; that the
Galileans, who were put to death by Pilate, fell not by reason of their
own wickedness, but by the judgment of the Lord! All who are not penitent
will suffer the same punishment, God chastens him whom he loves.(86) To
rest his hopes on God, and to be patient in misfortune, is the best way
to live in this world and in the next. May Leon, King of the Armenians,
the writer and the reader of this, be judged worthy to enter into this
eternal and immortal world. To the praise and honour of the three persons
and one God, now and for ever, world without end.
NOTES.
Note (1), page 23.
This is the famous patriarch Nerses Clajensis in the twelfth century, one
of the best writers of the Armenian nation. Galanus (I. 239) is full of
praise of him. “Nerses Clajensis,” says he, “orthodoxus patriarcha, quem
Armenia universa, ut sanctum illius ecclesiæ patrem et doctorem agnoscit,
ejusque commemorationem in Liturgia et Menelogiis celebrat. Fuit poeta
sacer, et hac quidem facultate adeo insignis, ut celebrioribus, meo
judicio, vel Græcis vel Latinis poetis in suo cœquandus sit idiomate.”
But both the praises and the censures of Galanus are to be received with
great caution; he is blinded by his orthodoxy, and praises and blames
the authors not according to their merit, but according to their faith.
Nerses has written much and on very different subjects; his elegy on the
capture of Edessa (1144) by the Turks, and his correspondence with the
emperor Alexius and Manuel, are the most interesting works for us and for
history. The elegy of Edessa has been printed several times and in many
places: most recently (1826) in Paris, but without a French translation.
The Archbishop Somal is not well-informed, when he says, (Quadro della
storia letteraria di Armenia. Venezia 1829, p. 84), “fu accompagnata
da una versione francese.” The correspondence of Nerses has only, as
far as I know, been once printed, viz. at St. Petersburgh, 1788, 1 vol.
4to. His short and uninteresting chronicle of the History of Armenia has
been often printed, and for the last time in 1824 in Constantinople. The
Archbishop Somal says, that this work was corrupted by the interpolations
of the schismatical editor (“audacemente dall’editore falsificata e
con riprovevole temerita sparsa di alcune aggiunte erronee contro il
Concilio ecumenico di Calcedonia.”) It is strange that the Armenians,
who entertain the tenets of their national church, and are styled
schismatical by the proselytes of the Roman Catholic Church, accuse the
orthodox editors at Venice of the same falsifications; the Armenians in
India wish therefore to print all their works, particularly the religious
ones, at the press of the Bishop’s College in Calcutta. (See Bishop
Heber’s Journals, iii. 435. 3d edition.)
Note (2), page 23.
This is king Leon III, who reigned from 1269 to 1289, and of whom the
chronicler speaks at the end of his work.
Note (3), page 23.
I imagine Vahram never read Lucretius: that author gives the same reason
for writing _De Rerum Natura_ in verse.
Note (4), page 24.
Epist. ad Rom., chap. xiii. in the beginning.
Note (5), page 24.
The reader may recollect the old Byzantine pictures, painted on a gold
ground; there is a large collection of these pictures at Schleisheim,
near Munich.
Note (6), page 25.
I feel regret for poor Vahram, who here shows himself a heretic; for
notwithstanding that it was forbidden to add any article to the creed
of Nice, or rather Constantinople, the Latins added the celebrated
_filioque_, that is to say, that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the
Father _and the Son_, and condemned all others as heretics who upheld
the old church, and would not acknowledge these innovations. Vahram, the
Raboun, or doctor, shows himself to be such a heretic. He even wrote some
dissertations on the trinity and the incarnation, at the command of his
master king Leon III, but they were never printed. The Roman Catholic
author of the “Quadro della letteratura di Armenia” (p. 115), says, that
even in these works Vahram “si prova scrittore di poco sana dottrina
intorno al dogma della processione dello Spirito-Santo.”
Note (7), page 25.
This is the language of all divines, and of those philosophers who think
_whatever is, is right_. If the sins of mankind have produced Mahomed,
why has Spain alone out of the nations of Europe been depressed? Were
these Visigoths greater sinners than their brethren in the south of
France or the Franks themselves? It is not a speculative opinion, but the
truth of history, that man is the architect of his own fortune, and that
the world belongs to the mighty.
Note (8), page 25.
The Turks were known in Europe as early as the beginning of the sixth
century of our era, but the western writers tell us nothing satisfactory,
either as to the name or the origin of this large division of the human
race. The Chinese, who were earlier acquainted with their _Thoo kiouei_,
are also contradictory in their statements. They say, the Thoo kiouei are
a particular tribe or class of the Hioung noo, called by different names,
and that they are called Thoo kiouei because their town near the Altai,
or gold mountain, had the form of a _helmet_, and a helmet is called Thoo
kiouei, _yn y wei haou_. Matuanlin, in his great work, B. 343, initio,
says this is the cause why this people is so called. It is fortunate
for historical literature, that this accomplished Chinese scholar had no
system in view in compiling his work: he quotes on the same page other
accounts on the origin of the name _Thoo kiouei_ and different traditions
of the original history of this nation. It has been remarked by Klaproth
(Asia Polyglotta, 212) that Thoo kiouei (or a very similar word) means,
indeed, in the Turkish language a _helmet_. If the Hiong noo are Turks
they cannot certainly be either the Huns of Attila or Fins. Concerning
the tribes of the Turks nothing is known with any certainty; tribes rise
and decay in Tartary like the sand-hills in the desert: who can count
them? The reader may find a lively and true picture of this rising and
falling of the different Turkoman tribes in a novel, by Frazer, called
_Memoirs of a Kusilbash_, printed 1828, in three volumes. The different
denomination of the same people, Turks and Turkomans, is already used by
William of Tyre, the celebrated historian of the Crusades; it may be said
that they differ one from another, like, in former times, the Highlanders
and Lowlanders in Scotland. While describing the difference between Turks
and Turkomans, we may use the words of Dr. Robertson, mentioning the
attempt of King James II. to civilize the Highlands and Isles. That great
historian has the following words:—“The inhabitants of the low country
began gradually to forget the use of arms, and to become attentive to
the arts of peace. But the Highlanders, or the Turkomans, retaining their
natural fierceness, averse from labour and inured to rapine, infested
their more industrious neighbours by their continual incursions.”
(_History of Scotland_, ad a. 1602.) Some modern authors think it worth
their while to take notice of a fault of a copyist (τοῦρκοι for ἰυρκαὶ),
and find therefore the Turks as early as in Herodotus, Pomponius Mela,
and Plinius; but this is not so unfair as to make Laura, the beautiful
and chaste Laura, responsible for eleven children, upon the faith of
a misinterpreted abbreviation, and the decision of a librarian. (Lord
Byron’s Notes on Childe Harold, Canto iv. stanza 30, lines 8 and 9.)
Note (9), page 26.
_The kings_ are the different Arabian chiefs who ruled independently of
the Caliph of Bagdad; the _emperor_ is the Emperor of Constantinople, or
the Roman emperor, as Vahram says, with the other authors of these times.
(See Gibbon, ch. 57.)
Note (10), page 26.
“The captives of these Turks were compelled to promise a spiritual as
well as temporal obedience; and instead of their collars and bracelets,
an iron horseshoe, a badge of ignominy, was imposed on the infidels, who
still adhered to the worship of their fathers.” (Gibbon, l. c.)
Note (11), page 26.
This is not quite true; the Caliph of Bagdad,—which new town our author
calls in his poetical style by the ancient name of Babylon,—could not
move from his capital without the consent of the descendents of Seljuk,
but they never chose Babylon as the seat of their empire; they had no
metropolis, but they preferred Nishapur. Abul Fazel (Ayeen Akbery II.
337) places Bagdad 33, and Babylon 32° 15´ latitude; their longitude is
the same; 80° 55´ from the Canary Islands.
Note (12), page 26.
The myriads of Turkish horse overspread a frontier of six hundred miles
from Tauris to Arzearum, and the blood of one hundred and thirty thousand
Christians was a grateful sacrifice to the Arabian prophet. (Gibbon l. c.)
Note (13), page 26.
This is certainly the truth; the Armenians fled in their despair from the
new Mahometan to the old Christian enemy. It can be only national vanity
or folly, to assert or suppose that the Emperor Michael would give the
province of Cappadocia for a country trampled on by the Seljuks, under
whose irresistible power he felt himself. The Cappadocians remembering
how they were dealt with in former time by the Armenians, and in
particular by Tigranes, could not receive their new guests with much
pleasure; and this is the principal reason of the great disaster which
soon followed.
Διέθηκε δὲ φαύλως αὐτοὺς Τιγράνης ὁ Ἀρμένιος, ἡνίκα τὴν καππαδοκίαν
κατέδραμεν ἅπαντας γὰρ ἀναςάτους ἐποίησεν εἰς τὴν Μεσοποταμίαν, &c.
(Strabo xii. 2, vol. iii. 2d ed. Tauchn.) It is stated by the American
missionaries, who have visited Cappadocia, that about 35,000 Armenians
are still living in this province. “Cappadocia has 30,000 Greeks and
35,000 Armenians.” (Mr. Gridley, in the Missionary Herald, vol. xxiv,
printed at Boston, p. 111.) Cæsarea has, according to the same authority,
from 60 to 80,000 inhabitants, and of these 2,000 are Greeks, and 8,000
Armenians. (Herald, 260.)
Note (14), page 27.
The origin of this name of the people is not known. The Armenians call
themselves after their fabulous progenitor Haig, and derive the name
_Armen_ from the son of Haig, Armenag; but I have not much confidence in
these ancient traditions of Moses of Chorene. The Armenians are a strong
instance that religion and civilization only give a particular character
and value to a people, and preserve it from being lost in the course of
time. Where are now the thirty different nations, which Herodotus found
(Melpom. 88), between the bay of Margandius and the Triopian promontory?
The Armenians are certainly a tribe of the ancient Assyrians; their
language and history speak alike in favour of it. Nearly all the words
of Assyrian origin which occur in the Scriptures and in Herodotus can be
explained by the present Armenian language. Their traditions say, also,
that Haig came from Babylon; and Strabo’s authority would at once settle
the question, if he did not affirm too much. The Arabian and the Syriac
language, and consequently the people, are radically different from the
Armenian.
These are the passages of the geographer alluded to: Τὸ γὰρ τῶν Ἀρμενίων
ἔθνος καὶ τὸ τῶν Σύρων καὶ τῶν Ἀράβων, πολλὴν ὁμοφυλίαν ἐμφαίνη κατὰ
τε τὴν διάλεκτον ... καὶ οἱ Ἀσσύριοι, καὶ οἱ Ἀριανοὶ, καὶ οἱ Ἀρμένιοι
παραπλησίως τως ἔχουσι, καὶ πρὸς τούτους καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους ... τοὺς ὑφ’
ἡμῶν Σύρους καλουμένους, ὑπ’ αὐτῶν τῶν Σύρον Ἀρμενίους καὶ Ἀραμμαίους
καλεῖσθαι. (Strabo i. 2, vol. i. 65, ed. Tauchn.) But the Aramæns or
Syrians are quite a different people from the Armenians, and Strabo is
quite wrong when he thinks that both names are commonly used to designate
one and the same nation. There is a fabulous story of a certain Er, the
son of a certain _Armenios_, a Pamphylian by birth (Plato de Rep. x), but
such stories are of no value in sober history.
Note (15), page 27.
This story is told with more details by some contemporary chroniclers.
Cakig reigned or rather had the _name_ of a king from 1042-1079, and he
is the last of the Bakratounian kings, a family which began its reign
under the supremacy of the Arabs in the year 859 of our era. As regards
the geography, the reader may compare the Mémoires sur l’Arménie, by
Saint-Martin.
Note (16), page 27.
Armenia remained from the time of the Parthians a feudal monarchy, and
for this reason I use the expressions of the feudal governments in the
middle ages.
Note (17a), page 27.
Dionysius, in his description of the earth, says (v. 642) that the
mountain is called Taurus: οὕνεκα ταυροφανές τε καὶ ὀξυκάρηνον ὁδεύει
οὔρεσιν ἐκταδιόισι πολυσχεδὲς ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα; perhaps more poetical than
true. “The road lies over the highest ridges of the Taurus mountains,
where, amidst the forests of pines, are several beautiful valleys and
small plains; there appears, however, no trace of cultivation, though
there is ample proof that these mountains were anciently well inhabited,
as we meet with scarcely a rock remarkable for its form or position that
is not pierced with ancient catacombs.” (Col. Leake’s Asia Minor in
Walpole’s Travels, i. 235.)
Note (17b), page 28.
This is the proper name for the possessions of Rouben; the Armenians
begin generally the line of the kings of Cilicia with the flight of
Rouben in 1080.
Note (18), page 28.
That is to say, as far as the gulph of Issus or Scanderum. Cilicia
and the sea-shore was also in former times once in the possession of
the kings of Armenia,—“the country on the other side of the Taurus,”
as the ancients used to say. Strabo says, from the Armenians (xiv. 5,
vol. iii. 321. ed. Tauchn.) that they, τὴν ἐκτὸς τοῦ Ταύρου προσέλαβον
μεχρὶ καὶ Φοινίκης. Plutarch says, that Tigranes “had colonized
Mesopotamia with Greeks, whom he drew in great numbers out of Cilicia and
Cappadocia.”—(Plutarch in Lucullo.)
Note (19), page 28.
Constantine sent many provisions to the Franks, when they were besieging
Antioch. The Armenians were happy to get such powerful allies against
their enemies, the Greeks. Alexius could not be very well pleased with
the creation of an Armenian Margrave by the Latins, of whom he extorted
“an oath of homage and fidelity, and a solemn promise that they would
either restore, or hold the Asiatic conquests, as the humble and loyal
vassals of the Roman empire”—(Gibbon, iv., 131. London, 1826, published
by Jones.) The Armenians translate _Margrave_ by _Asbed_, that is, Chief
of the cavalry.
Note (20), page 29.
It is not easy to see what connexion there is between the resurrection of
a hen, or a duck, with the death of a king. What were the principles of
divination of these wise men, of whom Vahram speaks?
Note (21), page 29.
The name of this fort is written differently by different authors; I
could not consult the great geographical works of Indjidjean.
Note (22), page 30.
I think that _Trassarg_ and _Trassag_ is the same word; the names of
places seem to be very corrupted in the Madras edition of Vahram’s
Chronicle. Chamchean says the king was buried in the monastery
_Trassarg_, which is very probable; but how could he say Thoros left
no son? In these monasteries the Armenian literature and sciences in
general were very much studied in the course of the eleventh and twelfth
centuries; some of the greatest Armenian authors flourished in the time
of the Crusades. In their libraries were collections of the old classics,
with many translations of the Greek authors; “e da quest’ opere,” says
the Archbishop Somal, “attinsero gli scrittori del corrente secolo (the
12th), quello precisione d’idee, quella nobilita di concetti, quella
purezza di stile, per cui si rendettero veramente gloriosi.” Quadro 80.
Foreigners are at a loss to find all these good qualities in the Armenian
authors of the twelfth century.
Note (23), page 30.
With what caution the secretary of Leon III. relates the treachery of
Leon I. We see by this passage that Chamchean is in the wrong in saying
that Thoros left no son. (Epitome of the great history of Armenia,
printed in Armenian, at Venice in the year 1811, p. 300.)
Note (24), page 30.
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.