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.
Sem, the son of Noe,—our author means Palestine and Syria. The Mamalukes
of Egypt remained in possession of Sham, or Syria, till the conquest of
Timur, 1400 of our era. He mentions in his Institutes, p. 148, the Defeat
of the Badishah of Miser and Sham شام. After the retreat of Timur, the
Mamalukes again took possession of the country, and held it till the
conquest of the Othomans. “Egypt was lost,” says Gibbon, “had she been
defended only by her feeble offspring; but the Mamalukes had breathed in
their infancy the keenness of the Scythian air; equal in valour, superior
in discipline, they met the Moguls in many a well-fought field, and drove
back the stream of hostility to the eastward of the Euphrates.”—Gibbon
iv. 270. See also p. 175, 261. It is known that “this government of the
slaves” lasted by treaty under the descendents of Selim, and was only
destroyed in our times by a signal act of treachery of Mehmed, Pasha of
Egypt.
Note (72), page 50.
“Antioch was finally occupied and ruined by Bondocdar, or Bibars, Sultan
of Egypt and Syria.”—Gibbon iv. 175. Antioch never rose again after this
destruction; it is now in a very decayed state, and has only about 10,000
inhabitants. The Turks pronounce the name _Antakie_.
Note (73), page 50.
Confiding in his Mogulian allies, or masters, Hethum took many places,
which formerly paid tribute to the Mamaluke sovereigns; they asked of
him, therefore, either to restore them their former possessions, or to
pay tribute.—Chamchean, 339.
Note (74), page 50.
This is certainly very remarkable. It had never happened before in the
history of the world, and will perhaps, never happen in future times,
that the kings of Georgia and Armenia, the Sultans of Iconium, the
Emirs of Persia, the ambassadors of France, of Russia, of Thibet, Pegu,
and Tonquin, met together in a place about nine thousand miles to the
north-west of Pekin, and that life and death of the most part of these
nations depended on the frown or smile of a great khan. M. Rémusat has
written a very learned and ingenious dissertation on the situation of
Caracorum.—Abul Fazel (Ayeen Akbery ii. 336, London edition, 1800), lays
down قراقوروم, Caracurem, long. 111. 0. lat. 44. 45. All the residences
of the khan were distinguished by the general name of _Kharibaligh_ (town
or residence of the khan), and this has led astray many historians and
geographers.
Note (75), page 52.
Jacobus I. died 1268, and is considered a very great man by the
Armenians; they call him the _Sage_ and the Doctor. Jacobus has written
some ecclesiastical tracts, and a very fine song on the nativity of the
Virgin Mary, which is printed in the Psalm-book of the Armenian church.
Note (76), page 53.
This seems to be the Greek word μακαρίος, “beatus,” “blessed,” &c.
Note (77), page 54.
Nobody receives the degree of a Vartabed without having previously
undergone a strict examination: it is something like the doctor of
philosophy of the German universities; but a Vartabed, that is to
say _a teacher_, is rather more esteemed in Armenia than a doctor of
philosophy in Germany. The Vartabed receives at his inauguration a staff,
denoting the power to teach, reprove, and exhort in every place with
all authority. (See the Biography of Gregory _Wartabed_, as the word
is spelt there, in the Missionary Herald, vol. xxiv. 140.) It is very
probable that this institution came in the fifth century of our era from
the philosophic schools in Athens to Armenia; nearly all the classical
writers of this age went to Athens for their improvement.
Note (78), page 54.
Leon III. gave orders to make new copies of all the works of the former
classical writers of the nation; in our eyes, his greatest praise.
Note (79), page 55.