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.)
This is king Leon III, who reigned from 1269 to
1289, and of whom the chronicler speaks at the end of
his work.
I imagine Vahram never read Lucretius: that author
gives the same reason for writing De Rerum Natura
in verse.
Epist. ad Rom., chap. xiii. in the beginning.
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.
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.”
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.
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.)
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.)
“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.)
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.
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.)
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.)
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.
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?
The name of this fort is written differently by different
authors; I could not consult the great geographical
works of Indjidjean.
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.
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.)
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.
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.)
The old fabulous hero of Armenia, spoken of by
Moses of Khorene.
Gibbon, iii. 341.
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.
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.)
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.
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.)
Only the wounded pride of an Armenian could
say this.
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.)
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.
Is this surname of Manuel found in the Byzantine
writers?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.)
An allusion to Ierem, i. 13.
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.)
It is very probable that the murderer Andronicus and
Meleh were acquainted with each other; their history
and their crimes are something similar.
Roustam was a Sultan of Iconium. (See the Chronology
of these Sultans in Deguigne’s Histoire des
Huns.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
This Rouben was of the royal family.—Chamchean,
326.
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.
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.
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.
In the battle against the Mameluks of Egypt in the
year 1266.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
Vahram has again the unsettled and vague name of
Tadjik.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
This seems to be the Greek word μακαρίος, “beatus,”
“blessed,” &c.
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.
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.
The King’s secretary cannot find words enough to
praise his master; in his zeal, he accumulates words
upon words which signify the same: I have passed
over some of these repetitions. Vahram, without being
aware of it, describes his master more as a pious monk
than as a prudent king. Why does the Secretary of
State not give any reason for the rebellious designs of
the Armenian chieftains?
From the time of Herodotus and Zoroaster to this
day, the Turcomans carried on their nomadical life, and
as it seems, without much change in their manners and
customs. The text of Herodotus and Polybius may be
explained by the embassies of Muravie and Meyendorn
to Khiva and Buchara. Many of these Turcoman
shepherds were driven to Asia Minor by the destruction
of the Charizmian empire by the Moguls; the inroads
and devastations of the Charizmian shepherds have been
described by many contemporary authors, and the Crusaders
experienced a great defeat from these savages.
The Egyptians having retired, Leon went against
their allies one by one.
The successor of Hulagou, khan of Persia.
Here Vahram calls even the Moguls Tadjiks,—is it
because they governed Persia?
Vahram calls here the territory of the Seljuks of
Iconium Turkestan. As regards the etymology of the
word, he is quite in the right; but what we are accustomed
to call Turkestan, is a country rather more to the
north-east.
Here ends the Chronicle; but Vahram adds some reflections
which I thought proper to subjoin, and only to
pass over his so often repeated pious sentiments.
The monk Vahram is not tired of repeating the same
thought in twenty different ways, but I was tired of
translating these repeated variations of the same theme,
and the reader would probably have been tired in reading
them. Why should we waste our time in translating
and reading sermons, from which nothing else could be
learned, than that the author said what had been said
long before him, in a better style. Why should we think
it worth our while to study the groundless reasoning of
a mind clouded by superstition?