Produced by Turgut Dincer and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This book was
produced from images made available by the HathiTrust
Digital Library.)










VAHRAM’S CHRONICLE OF THE ARMENIAN KINGDOM IN CILICIA.




                                VAHRAM’S
                                CHRONICLE
                                   OF
                    THE ARMENIAN KINGDOM IN CILICIA,
                               DURING THE
                          TIME OF THE CRUSADES.

                 TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL ARMENIAN,
                                  WITH
                        NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS,

                                   BY
                         CHARLES FRIED. NEUMANN.

                                 LONDON:
               PRINTED FOR THE ORIENTAL TRANSLATION FUND,
                               And Sold by
                      J. MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET;
                PARBURY, ALLEN, & CO., LEADENHALL STREET;
            THACKER & CO., CALCUTTA; TREUTTEL & WÜRTZ, PARIS;
                       AND E. FLEISCHER, LEIPSIG.
                                  1831.

                                 LONDON:
                Printed by J. L. Cox, Great Queen Street
                          Lincoln’s-Inn Fields.




    TO

    PROFESSOR WILKEN,

    AUTHOR OF

    “THE HISTORY OF THE CRUSADES,”

    AND

    LIBRARIAN TO HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF PRUSSIA,

    THIS VOLUME

    IS DEDICATED,

    WITH PROFOUND RESPECT AND ESTEEM,

    BY

    THE TRANSLATOR.




PREFACE.


The greatest defect of the following Chronicle is its brevity. VAHRAM,
of whose life little more is known than that he was a native of Edessa,
a priest, and the secretary of king Leon III., exhibits almost all the
faults of the common Chroniclers of the Middle Ages. He relates many
barren facts, without stating the circumstances with which they were
connected, and he mistakes every where the passions of men for the finger
of God. The compilers of chronicles were in those ages ignorant of the
true end, and unacquainted with the proper objects of history. But
with all its defects, the chronicle of the Armenian kings of Cilicia,
written by a contemporary writer, is valuable. The friend of history may
now be enabled to form an estimate of the origin and the increase of
an empire, which for want of materials has been overlooked by the most
learned and acute historians. Gibbon, of whom it is doubtful whether
we should most admire his genius or his erudition, in his celebrated
work simply mentions the _name_ of Cilicia, a kingdom, which carried on
successful wars against the emperors of Constantinople; and which, from
the beginning of the Crusades remained the friend and ally of the Franks,
and to whom belonged a part of the sea-coast, that continued from the
time of Ezekiel the theatre of the commerce of the world. The Venetians
and Genoese were so impressed with the importance of Cilicia, that they
made several commercial treaties with the Armenian kings; the Armenian
original of one of these agreements, together with a translation and
notes, has been printed by the learned orientalist, Saint-Martin.

The Crusaders were astonished to find within the frontiers of the
Byzantine empire a powerful prince and ally of whom they had never
before heard mention. Nicetas betrays a want of historical knowledge and
research, in saying that the Armenians and Germans were united together,
because they both disliked holy images.[1] The Germans and a great part
of the Armenians, on the contrary, felt no aversion to the worship of
images, but the latter, ever since the first division of the Arsacidian
kingdom of Armenia between the Sassanides and the Greeks, in the year
three hundred and eighty-seven, had been in perpetual warfare with the
Byzantine empire; and this warfare caused a degree of animosity between
the two people (Greeks and Armenians), of which traces may be seen even
at the present time.

By the unjust and cruel division of the kingdom of Armenia, the largest
and most fertile part of the country fell (as the contemporary historian
Lazar of Barb observes) to the empire of Persia. The Byzantine emperors
and the Sassanian princes for a while permitted native kings to hold a
precarious sceptre; but they were speedily dismissed; and the Byzantine
part of Armenia was governed by a Greek magistrate, and the Persian by a
Marsban or Margrave. This state of the country, somewhat similar to that
of the Maronites in our times, was on a sudden changed by the conquests
of the Arabs; but the Armenians would not accept the Koran, and their
condition became worse under the zealous and fanatical followers of the
prophet of Mecca than under the descendants of Sapor the Great, while
weak and dismayed by civil wars.

Ashod the Bagratide, an Armenian nobleman of a Jewish family, who had
fled to Armenia after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadanozor, at
last gained the confidence of his Arabian masters; and in the year eight
hundred and fifty-nine was appointed Emir al Omra, Ishkhan Ishkhanaz
(prince of princes),—as the native historians translate the Arabian
title—over all Armenia: and was soon after it (888) favoured with a
tributary crown. The Bagratides and the rival kings of the family of the
Arzerounians, were the faithful friends (or slaves) of the Arabs, and
often suffered from the inroads and devastations of the Greeks. We learn
from Vahram the means through which the Bagratian kingdom in Armenia
Proper was extinguished; and that a new Armenian kingdom arose on the
craggy rocks of Mount Taurus, and which gradually extended its boundaries
to the sea-coast, including the whole province of Cilicia. Vahram carries
his monotonous historical rhymes no farther down than the time of the
death of his sovereign, Leon III. (1289); but the Cilicio-Armenian
kingdom, which during the whole time of its existence perhaps never was
entirely independent, lasted nearly a hundred years longer. Leon, the
sixth of that name and the last Armenian king of Cilicia, was in 1375
taken a prisoner by the Mamalukes of Egypt, and after a long captivity
(1382) released by the generous interference of King John I. of Castille.
He was not however permitted to return to his own country; but wandered
through Europe from one country to another till his death, which happened
at Paris, the 19th of November 1393. He was buried in the monastery of
the Celestines.

The Mamalukes did not long remain masters both of Cilicia and of a part
of Armenia Proper; but yielded to the fortune and the strength of the
descendants of Osman or Othman: when the Armenians again felt, as in
former times, all the disasters to which the frontier provinces between
two rival empires are usually exposed. The cruel policy of the Sophies
transplanted thousands of Christian families to the distant provinces of
Persia, and transformed fertile provinces into artificial deserts. The
Armenians therefore, like the Jews, were obliged to disperse themselves
over the world, and resort to commerce for the necessaries of life.
Armenian merchants are now to be found in India, on the islands of the
Eastern Archipelago, in Singapore, in Afghanistan, Persia, Egypt, in
every part of Asia Minor and Syria, Russia, Poland, Austria, Italy; and
even the present patriarch of Abyssinia is an Armenian. The valiant
descendants of Haig are now, like the offspring of Abraham, considered
every where clever and shrewd merchants: they were of great service
to the East-India Company in carrying on their trade with the inland
provinces of Hindostan; and it was once thought that they were fitter
for this part of the mercantile business, than any agents of the Company
itself.[2]

It is not more than half a century since the modern Armenian provinces
began to look on Russia for succour and relief, when the Empress
Catherine behaved in many instances most generously to the ruined house
of Thorgoma. The fortunate wars of Russia against the Shah and the Sultan
have within the last ten years brought the greater part of the old
Parthian kingdom of Armenia under the sway of the mighty Czars. It seems
probable, that we may see yet in our times a new kingdom of Armenia,
created out of barbarian elements by the generosity and magnanimity of
the Emperor Nicholas.

The following Chronicle is translated from an edition printed at Madras
in the year 1259 of the Armenian era, that is the year 1810 _Anno
Domini_. The volume is printed by the command of that great promoter of
literature, Ephrem, archbishop and primate of the Armenians in Russia,
and contains, besides the chronicle of Vahram, the Elegy of Edessa
by Nerses Shnorhaly; and the elegy on his death, written by the most
eminent of his disciples, Nerses of Lampron. It is said in the preface
of the before-mentioned volume, that the work of Vahram, the secretary
of Leon III., had been previously printed, though in a very negligent
and careless manner. I have never however seen any other than the Madras
edition, where the proper names of places and foreign nations are
often incorrectly spelt. I am sorry to add, that I made the following
translation in a place where it was impossible for me to refer to the
well known works on the geography of Armenia, of Cilicia, and of Asia
Minor generally; neither could I compare the narrative of Vahram with the
statements of the contemporary Byzantine and Latin writers: but I trust
the learned reader will easily supply these defects.

Vahram is nearly the latest author who is considered by the Armenian
literati to write classically. The classical Armenian language had been
preserved from the beginning of Armenian literature in the fifth century,
amidst various political and religious disturbances, for a period of
eight hundred years. During the course of the thirteenth century the
language became corrupted; and in the fourteenth authors began to use in
their writings the corrupted vernacular idiom. The ancient native writers
were neglected, their classical translations and imitations of the
celebrated Greek patterns became superseded by the barbarous literature
of the Latins, and John of Erzinga, otherwise Bluz (1326), the last
who wrote the language of Moses and Elisæus, translated a work on the
sacraments by St. Thomas Aquinas.

We thus find some orders of monks in Armenia, educated in the Latin
schools and in latin manners, who corrupted the native Haican language
by the introduction of many foreign scholastic expressions; and a new
race of sanguinary barbarians, the Dominicans, became the authors of
works worthy of their titulary saint. The Armenian literature remained
in this abject condition, to which these holy fathers had reduced it,
for nearly four hundred years; but about the middle of the eighteenth
century the nation roused itself from this lethargy, and Madras,
Calcutta, Djulfa, New Nakshivan, Etshmiadsin, Tabris, St. Petersburg,
Moscow, Amsterdam, Smyrna, and principally Venice, bear witness to the
literary energy of the far dispersed descendants of Haig. With the dawn
of Armenian literature, history has been enriched by the Chronicle of
Eusebius; yet more and weightier literary treasures may be expected from
its meridian splendour. There are hints in the writers of the fifth
century, of translations of Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, and the Chronicle
of Julius Africanus. Besides these versions of the classical writers of
Greece, there exist very valuable original histories, which have never
been printed or translated, and many a chasm might be filled up in the
history of the middle ages by these authors. We should, perhaps, be
introduced to nations now totally lost, or so mingled with others, that
it is impossible to distinguish them. There is a rumour of a manuscript
history of the Albanians,—a nation well known to Strabo and to Moses
of Chorene,[3] said to exist at a monastery in Armenia Proper,—of those
Albanians, who lived between Iberia or Georgia and the confines of the
Caspian Sea; but of which people no traces are to be found in our times.

A literary journey to Armenia, undertaken by an active laborious scholar,
who unites the knowledge of the Armenian language with classical studies,
would prove of the greatest importance to the knowledge of ancient
history and to the advancement of general literature.




THE CHRONICLE OF VAHRAM.




THE CHRONICLE.


The Patriarch Nerses, called the Gracious,(1) has written a history
of Armenia in verse, informing us of the manners and customs of our
forefathers, from the highest antiquity down to his own time; and by so
doing he admonished the people to walk in the path of righteousness.
Seeing and reading this history, Leon, the anointed king of Armenia,(2)
has been pleased to command me, the poor in spirit, to subjoin to
the work of our holy father both what has been reported by faithful
witnesses, and what we have seen with our own eyes. And he commanded me
to write this supplement (also in verse), that it may be read with more
pleasure.(3)

Now I, Raboun Vahram, am convinced of my want of talents, but am well
versed in the law of God, and have never deviated from the path of
righteousness. Receiving the commands of the king, I have been ever since
uneasy in my mind, out of fear that in not obeying, I may bring on me the
two-fold punishment spoken of by St. Paul.(4) For, if to subjoin my mean
composition to those of the ancients be audacious, to think that it could
be compared with their finished productions, would be folly. This alarmed
me, and I abstained from writing. Considering this very seriously, I
thought at last that my humble and mean writing would increase the beauty
of others, to which it was subjoined: the same as painters intentionally
surround a gold ground by a black colour, not to adorn this black border,
but to raise the beauty of the gold.(5) These considerations made me
regain confidence, and I felt resolution enough to undertake this work. I
confide in Him, whose grace is unbounded, who knows what nobody has seen,
who under three appearances is only of one nature, _Father_, _Son_, and
_Holy Ghost_; whose reign is for ever, who alone should be worshipped,
and who alone creates and preserves all beings. With his name I begin,
and with his name I will finish. Both the Son and the Holy Ghost
proceeded from the Father.(6) Going back a little to former times, I will
give (till I come to our age), in a cursory manner, what has been written
down by our forefathers.

The Christian nations have been favoured with the inheritance of God;
they have been enlightened by the faith, and had excellent laws; but
they strayed from those laws, and were polluted by their bad works. The
measure of their sins being filled, it excited the wrath of the Lord,
and a burning fire arose in the desert of Arabia called Mahomed, the son
of darkness.(7) This Father of heresy drew many after him; he arose and
preached by the sabre and the sword, and subdued many countries. The
wickedness remained after the death of the wicked, the son followed the
father, and the usurpation was confirmed.

[Sidenote: Togrul Beg. 1037]

In the course of the following centuries, the nations, whom we call
Turks, came (divided into twenty-four tribes)(8) from the north,
conquered the realm of Persia and adhered to the heresy of Mohamed; they
humbled the kings and vanquished the emperor;(9) they filled the world
with their victories and destroyed its inhabitants, endangering both body
and soul of their captives.(10) They came at last to Babylon,(11) and
there erecting the seat of their empire, they marched to the westward,
[Sidenote: 1042] came to Armenia, dealt hardly with its inhabitants, and
laid a heavy yoke on them.(12)

Tired of this oppression, and unable to sustain all the hardships which
the barbarians laid on them, the inhabitants preferred being strangers
in foreign countries to remaining slaves in their own home; they left
the land of their forefathers, and fled to the western and northern
regions. Cakig II, the anointed king of Armenia, considering these
disastrous circumstances, and the dire necessity of the case, [Sidenote:
1045] gave up his country to the Roman Emperor, in exchange for the
great and celebrated town of Cæsarea, and other places in Cappadocia;
and in consequence of this, the Armenians lived as emigrants under the
Greeks.(13)

But the jealousy which had existed for so many centuries between the
two nations, was rooted too deep in the heart of every individual, and
caused many disorders. The metropolitan of Cæsarea, named Marcus, had a
dog, whom he called Armen.(14) Cakig hearing of this, [Sidenote: 1079]
invited Marcus to dinner, and asked of him the name of the dog: the
frightened metropolitan called the dog by another name, the animal did
not hear; but as soon as he called him by the proper name, _Armen_, the
dog ran to him. The king then gave orders that both the metropolitan
and his dog should be put into one sack together, and tortured until
they could bear it no longer. As soon as the Greeks heard this news,
they rose against the Armenians; and the sons of one Mandal killed the
King Cakig.(15) This discouraged the chieftains and the leaders of the
army, they ran away and were scattered over various parts of the world.
A famous chief of the blood royal, _Rouben_ by name, baron of the fort
Kosidar,(16) hearing the news of the king’s death, fled with his whole
family to Mount Taurus,(17a) descended then the mountains on the other
side of Phrygia, and [Sidenote: 1080] took possession of a place called
_Korhmoloss_, and remained there. Many other Armenians also took refuge
in these mountains; the great Rouben united them together, and so
increased his strength, that he could [Sidenote: 1095] take possession of
the whole mountain district, expel the Greeks, and secure the country for
himself. He lived a holy life, and was at last raised to Christ.

_Constantine_ (or Costantin, as the Armenians write the name), the son
of Rouben, succeeded him in the principality,(17b) and was a valiant
and magnanimous prince; his principal place was Vahga, where he had his
residence, and from whence he governed his dominions. He fought many
battles, and conquered many forts; he destroyed the armies of the Greeks,
and took many captives. The dominions of Constantine extended to the
sea;(18) he was highly honoured by the Franks, and was their ally against
the Turks; they raised his possessions to the dignity of a comitatus, or
county, and appointed him the Count and Margrave.(19) Valiant, kind and
benevolent, and a true believer, his fame reached to the other side of
the sea; he cultivated the country and rebuilt the towns, and all was
blooming and cheerful during his lifetime. There occurred a sign from
heaven, announcing the death of this extraordinary man; the meat brought
to him on a silver plate started suddenly away, and fled to the corner of
the house and hid itself among the poultry. Wise men looked on this as a
sign that the king would soon be gathered to his forefathers, and so it
happened. He reposeth in Christ with his father Rouben, and was buried in
the church called Castalon.(20)

Constantine had two sons, the elder, who [Sidenote: 1100] succeeded his
father, was called Thoros, and the younger Leon. Thoros superabounded
in wisdom, and his military valour is highly spoken of. He sought to
revenge the blood of Cakig the Great, and made war against the sons of
Mandal; he reduced their fort Centerhasg,(21) killed the inhabitants, and
carried away great booty. He found in this place a likeness of the Holy
Virgin, and treated it with great esteem: by this he became more and more
powerful, and vanquished the Greeks many times. He took Anazarbus, built
therein a large church, and adorned it with the names of his generals and
with the likeness of the Holy Virgin. He governed valiantly, and so much
was he esteemed that Cilicia lost its proper name, and has been called
_The Country of Thoros_. Thoros loved God with all his heart, favoured
his servants, built churches, and held the convents in high esteem, in
particular those which are called _Trassarg_ and _Mashgevar_; he bestowed
on these and on others many gifts. Living such a holy life, he went at
last in to the Lord, [Sidenote: 1123] and was buried in the holy church
called Trassarg.(22)

After the death of Thoros, his only son and heir was cast into prison by
some wicked people, who administered to him a poisonous drug,(23) thus
the principality came to Leon, the brother of Thoros, and his equal in
reputation. _Leon_ conquered Mamestia and Tarsus;(24) he invited many
famous warriors to join him, and allured them by great rewards. Forward
in battle, he prepared himself, and often fought against the foreigners
or infidels,(25) took their forts and put all the inhabitants to the
sword. He was the admiration of warriors, and the fear of foreigners
or infidels, so that they called him the new _Ashtahag_.(26) After his
return with honours and fame to his own country, four sons were born to
him, so incomparable among men; the first was called _Thoros_ the Great,
who was adorned by Stephanus (or the crown). Next to Stephanus came
_Meleh_, and then _Rouben_.

The Roman Emperor (Calo-Johanes), who had the surname of
Porphyrogenitus,(27) hearing all that Leon had done, became very angry.
He assembled a great army and brought them down into Cilicia. Leon,
finding that he was surrounded by a large army, lost all confidence
in his forts and fled to the mountains; but he was speedily taken and
brought in fetters before the emperor. There are some who even affirm
that the emperor broke his oath, and took Leon by fraud. His two sons
were also arrested, and with their father carried into captivity;
[Sidenote: 1137] they were detained together in prison in Constantinople.
Meleh and Stephanus were fortunately not in Cilicia at the time their
father was taken prisoner; they were on a visit in Urha or Edessa, with
their uncle, the count of that place.(28)

The Armenian army was destroyed, and the emperor took possession of
Cilicia; he left a part of his soldiers in that country and then returned
to Constantinople. The eye which looks down from heaven on the earth
below had pity upon Leon and his two unfortunate sons, and the emperor’s
heart turned to clemency. He honoured Leon exceedingly, and gave
permission to his children to stay with their father; he invited him to
dinner, and permitted him the recreation of hunting; he gave him handsome
clothes and many other fineries.(29) On one occasion the emperor, being
in his bathing-room, called Leon and his sons before him, treated them
most kindly, and was so pleased with the prowess of Rouben, that he made
him one of his household, and promised to raise him yet higher.

Rouben once took the bathing tub of the emperor, which was full of water,
and swung it quickly round, which excited much surprise. The news reached
the emperor, and all who saw the act called him a new Sampson; but this
excited envy in the soldiers and filled them with hatred. They gained the
ear of the emperor, accused Rouben, and ultimately killed him by their
wicked devices.(30)

Thoros was now left alone with his father in prison, where he had a
dream, which he instantly imparted to his father. “I saw in a dream,”
said he, “a man of very superior appearance offering me a loaf of bread,
on which was a fish; I being very astonished, took from the man what he
offered to me; when thou, Oh father! earnest, and I enquired the meaning
of that; but what further happened I know not.” Leon, hearing these words
from his son, was enlightened by heaven, and turning to him joyfully,
embraced him ardently and said: “Be joyful, O my honourable son! for thou
wilt be honoured as thy forefathers. After evil cometh a twofold good
fortune,—our country, which was taken from us on account of our sins, and
other lands, will again be governed by thee. The fish which thou hast
seen, means,—that thou wilt be master of the sea, but I shall not enjoy
these good tidings.”

Leon died and was elevated to Christ; the emperor then felt compassion
for Thoros, [Sidenote: 1141] took him out of prison, and received him
into the imperial guards. Being now in the imperial palace, and a soldier
among the soldiers, he very soon distinguished himself, and even the
emperor looked upon him with benevolence. Before the end of the year
(1141) the emperor left Constantinople with a large army, and went to
assist the Prince of Antioch, who was hard pressed by the Turks.(31)
Being on a hunting party in the valley of Anazarbus, one of his own
poisoned arrows wounded him, and he fell dead on the spot; he thus met
with his deserved fate.(32) The army buried him on the place where he
lost his life, and erected a monument which is even now to be seen,
called _Kachzertik_, that is, _The corpse of the Calos, or Beautiful_.(33)

The Greek army returned, but Thoros remained in the country; though the
traditions concerning this fact are different. Some say, Thoros withdrew
himself quite alone, went by sea from Antioch to Cilicia, and took
possession of his dominions, finding means to gain at first the town of
Amouda, and afterwards all the other places. But the emperor’s party say
that Thoros, during the time the Greeks stayed in the country, lived with
a lady who gave him a great sum of money; with these treasures he fled
to the mountains, and discovered himself to a priest as the Son of Leon,
the true king of the country. The priest was exceedingly happy at these
tidings, and Thoros hid himself under a shepherd’s disguise. [Sidenote:
1143] There were many Armenians in this part of the country who, being
barbarously treated by the Greeks, sighed for their former masters; to
these men, as it is said, the priest imparted the joyful tidings; they
instantly assembled and appointed _Thoros_ their _Baron_;(34) he gained
possession of Vahga, and afterwards of many other places. Let this be
as it may, it was certainly ordained by God that this man, who was
carried away as a prisoner, should become the chief of the country of his
forefathers, that he should take the government out of the hands of the
Greeks, and destroy their armies.

After the death of the Porphyrogenitus, his _son_ Manuel succeeded him,
who is commonly called _Pareser, the Virtuous_.(35) Immediately after he
had taken possession of the empire, Manuel assembled an army to assist
the Franks, who came by sea to these countries, and were hardly pressed
by the Turks. Coming to Cilicia, and hearing what Thoros had done; how he
wronged the Greeks, and behaved himself as the master of the country, the
emperor became very angry, and ordered that Thoros should be brought to
him a prisoner, which he thought an easy matter. But Thoros shut himself
up in a steep and high fort, occupied all the narrow passes by his
soldiers, and easily repulsed from thence the Greeks, many of whom were
taken and brought in fetters before the victor. [Sidenote: 1146] Manuel
being informed of what had happened, became still more enraged.(36)

It happened that the emperor sent at that time, under the guard of many
great men, a large sum of money, and that Thoros took the guard and the
treasure, and divided the latter among his soldiers. These Greek nobles
seeing this, said to Thoros: “Having taken such great riches, why dost
thou squander them away to the common people?” Thoros answered nothing
to this question, and only remarked: “These same men will bring you back
to fetters, although you are now allowed to return to your friends.”(37)
The emperor heard with astonishment what these men, on their return,
reported to him, and wished to keep on good terms with Thoros. The Prince
of Antioch became the umpire between them. The emperor came to Antioch,
where also Thoros was invited, and gained the admiration of every body
by his prowess and valour. The emperor wanted Anazarbus and many other
places, which were in the possession of Thoros; he accordingly delivered
them up for a large sum of money.

Thoros returned to Cilicia, and the emperor put a stop to the campaign
in order to return to his own country. As soon as the imperial army
started from Anazarbus, Thoros proceeded suddenly in the night time to
Vahga. Now, whether the king presumed upon(38) any thing, or whether
some communication had been made to him, he did not wish to hold to the
treaty. Thoros, as soon as the Emperor Manuel went back, again began
his inroads. He again took Anazarbus and conquered Mamestia and the
surrounding towns. The Duke of Tarsus, who was appointed governor of
the country by the emperor, hearing of these proceedings of Thoros,
assembled the great Greek army left him by the emperor, and those
Armenian barons who belonged to the emperor’s party, and enjoyed many
honours by his kindness, such as Oscin the baron of Lampron, and the
family of Nathaniel, who were the chiefs of Asgourhas.(39) They now
united together to besiege Mamestia; when Thoros behaved himself very
valiantly. With only a few men he made a sally out of the town, gained a
complete victory over a large army, and took many prisoners; some of the
Greeks he put to death, while others gained their liberty for a ransom.
His Armenian captives he set instantly at liberty, and contrived to gain
their friendship. Oscin having been won by a large sum of money, gave up
his connexion with the emperor, and made a treaty with Thoros; and Thoros
gave his daughter in marriage to the son of Oscin.(40) The Baron having
thus settled his affairs collected a fresh army, took the famous Tarsus,
and all the country from the precipices of Isauria(41) to the sea; he
conquered Cilicia, beginning from Isauria, from one end to the other.
The Emperor Manuel hearing these occurrences grew enraged on feeling
himself unable to chastise Thoros. He sent a message to the Sultan of
Iconium,(42) Chlish-Aslan, and promised him a great sum of money if he
would make war against Thoros. The first time, the sultan objected to
the treaty which existed between him and Baron Thoros, and so withstood
the temptation; but his reluctance was overcome by a second message.
[Sidenote: 1154] He collected a large army, carried them into Cilicia,
descended into the plain, and besieged Anazarbus. But God was against
them and punished them with plagues, like those of the Egyptians; he sent
flies and wasps against the infidels, and harassed them with many other
heavy calamities. Thoros made inroads into the Sultan’s own country, won
Iconium itself, returned with a large booty, and sent Chlish-Aslan a
present out of the booty. By this, and by the hardships they suffered,
the Sultan and his followers were disgusted, and returned to their own
country. [Sidenote: 1156] They came back a second time, and returned
again in confusion. The Sultan then kept his oath, and remained the
friend of our hero.

Thoros was of a tall figure and of a strong mind: his compassion was
universal; like the light of the sun he shone by his good works, and
flourished by his faith; he was the shield of truth and the crown of
righteousness; he was well versed in the Holy Scriptures and in the
profane sciences. It is said that he was of such profound understanding,
as to be able to explain the difficult expressions of the prophets—his
explanations even still exist.(43) In a word, he was so accomplished in
every thing, that God was pleased to call him to heaven. [Sidenote: 1167]
He was buried in Trassarg.

His brother Stephanus, of whom we have spoken before, remained near the
_Black Mountain_, making himself illustrious by his prowess, and gaining
Carmania and the surrounding places;(44) but the Greeks came again
against him, and he was consumed by the “seething pot.”(45) He died in
the field and was buried in the church of Arkagal (or the Archangel). He
left two sons, Rouben and Leon, who became afterwards king of Cilicia.

Thoros left a child under age, whom he committed, together with the
country, to the care of a certain Baron and Baillie Thomas, his
father-in-law, with an injunction to deliver to him the country as soon
as the child should have attained his majority.(46) [Sidenote: 1168]
_Meleh_, of whom we have spoken above, was with the Sultan of Aleppo,
and hearing of the death of his brother, he came with an army into the
country, and dealt very cruelly with its inhabitants. Not being able to
conquer the possessions of his brother he returned to Aleppo, and came
back with still greater forces. Receiving a message from the Armenian
Barons that they would freely acknowledge him as their sovereign, he
sent back the Turks, and governed in peace for some time. But he soon
drove into exile the Baillie Thomas, who went afterwards to Antioch. The
child of Thoros was killed by the command of Meleh by some wicked people.
[Sidenote: 1169] This cruel man was at last killed by his own soldiers,
and buried in the church called _the great Car_.(47)

The sons of Stephanus, Rouben and Leon, were very much honoured by a
certain Baron _Pakouran_, by the whole Armenian nobility, and the army;
they therefore appointed _Rouben_ as their Baron. [Sidenote: 1174] He
was an excellent prince, compassionate and kind; he ruled the country
very well, and was praised by every body. He was a friend of the
Greeks, and married a lady of that nation, by whom he had two daughters
blooming in chastity. He besieged Lampron and pressed its inhabitants
very hard; they not being able to withstand him, called the Prince to
their assistance; he [Sidenote: 1182] invited Rouben to Antioch, and
fraudulently held him a prisoner, thinking to conquer Cilicia with
ease during his captivity. But his brother Leon and the army behaved
themselves very valiantly; they pressed Lampron so closely in the absence
of the Baron, and defended their own country so well, that they released
Rouben and acknowledged his supremacy. The inhabitants of Lampron gave
themselves and their treasure up to the Baron of Cilicia. On his return
to his own country Rouben was kind and humane to every one, and at his
death left the crown to Leon; he gave him many rules concerning the
government of the country, and committed to him his daughters, with an
injunction not to give them foreign husbands, that the Armenians might
not be governed by foreigners and harassed by a tyrant. [Sidenote: 1185]
Rouben was buried in Trassarg.

_Leon_ was a valiant and learned prince; he enlarged his principality and
became the master of many provinces. A few days only after his taking
possession of the country, the descendants of Ismael, under the command
of one Roustam, advanced and came against Cilicia.(48) [Sidenote: 1186]
Leon was not frightened, but confiding in God, who destroyed Sanacherib,
he vanquished with a few men the great army of the infidels. Roustam
himself being killed by St. George,(49a) the whole Hagarenian army then
fled and dispersed; the Armenians pursued them and enriched themselves
by the booty. The power of Leon thus increased, and being confident
in his strength, he chased the Tadjiks(49b) and pursued the Turks; he
conquered Isauria and came as far as Iconium; he captured Heraclea,(50)
and again gave it up for a large ransom; he blockaded Cæsarea,(51) and
had nearly taken it; he made a treaty with the Sultan of Iconium, and
received a large sum of money from him; he surrounded Cilicia on every
side with forts and castles; he built a new church called Agner, and was
exceedingly generous to all monasteries erected by his ancestors; his
bounty extended itself even to the leprous; they being shunned by every
body and expelled from every place, he assigned to them a particular
house, and provided them with necessaries.

By such proceedings Leon attained a great name and became known to the
Emperor of the Franks and the Greeks, and both, by Heavens’ grace,
favoured him with the diadem; and, indeed, the mission by which Leon the
Great was crowned King,(52) was very famous. [Sidenote: Jan. 6, 1198] The
Armenians assembled together in the city of Tarsus, and in the cathedral
of that town the Catholicos(53) anointed Leon, as it is the custom,
king of the house of Thorgoma,(54) to sit on the throne and flourish
in kindness; to glorify the church, and to govern well the country; to
collect together the dispersed people, and to renovate its power; lastly,
to fill the country with peace and to make it as happy as paradise.

This great king brought the Prince of Antioch over to him, by marrying to
him his niece, the daughter of his brother. He then made an inroad into
the province of Arasu and conquered the place called Balresay; by his
excellent wisdom he also gained Lampron.

[Sidenote: 1201]

The great Sultan of Iconium Caicaiuss(55) marched from Camir against the
king, and besieged the fort Capan. The unruly Armenian troops attacked
the enemy without waiting for an order of the king, and being partly
killed and partly taken prisoners, the Turks pressed very hard the fort
Capan. Leon did not let his spirits droop by this defeat; he collected
what troops remained with him, and went plundering the territories of the
Sultan as far as Camir. He laid waste the Sultan’s country, and returned
with a large booty. Hearing this the Sultan started from Cilicia to his
own principality, and made peace with Leon, on the condition that the
booty should be restored.

Leon, having governed the country twelve years as Baron and twenty-two as
King, felt his end approaching, and appointed in an assembly of the whole
nobility of the kingdom, a certain baron named Atan to be Regent(56) of
the country and guardian of his daughter. Leon died soon after and was
buried in the church of Agner; a part of his body was brought into the
town of Sis, and a church was built thereupon.

[Sidenote: May 1, 1219]

After the assassination of Atan, Constantine was appointed regent, when
he gave the daughter of the king and the heiress of the empire (the good
and chaste lady Isabella), in marriage to one of the family of the king,
the barons acknowledged him as their lawful sovereign, [Sidenote: 1220]
and swore the oath of allegiance.(57) But there arose a disturbance in
the country; one Rouben(58) came from the Prince of Antioch, gained over
many of the nobility and aspired to the crown. He soon took possession of
Tarsus and was about to march against Sis; but Constantine met him near
Tarsus with a great army, and vanquished this enemy. Rouben and the chief
men of his party died in prison.

By this victory Constantine became more powerful, and governed the
country with a firm hand; he built churches and honoured the clergy. At
this time the patriarch was called John, the sixth since Nerses, from
whom, as we have said, we began our chronicle, and think it therefore
proper to mention these blessed persons.

After the death of Nerses, that is to say, after his migration from one
life to another, Gregorius, called _Degha_, or the _child_, was anointed.
He was a fine and strong man. After him Gregorius, called _Carawesh_, or
_killed by the stone_;—then Gregorius Abirad;—and at last John, whom we
have before mentioned.(59) Leon entered into a dispute with John, and
appointed David in his place. This man governed the church for two years
in an excellent manner: but after this, the king being reconciled to
John, elevated him again on his seat. After this reconciliation king Leon
fell sick and died, very much lamented by the Armenians. [Sidenote: 1223]
The Lord Constantine succeeded him, who excelling in kindness, betrothed
the heiress of the empire, Isabella, before an assembly of the whole
nobility, to his son Hethum.(60)

Hethum was then anointed king of Armenia; he was crowned with a golden
crown, and held a golden consecrated sceptre in his hand, with a globe
mounted in gold; he was placed on a high golden throne, and having
these signs of royalty in his right hand, he promised to deal justice
to the people at large and protect the poor from injustice. Hethum was
an excellent and gracious king; fine and handsome in body and soul;
religious, kind, compassionate, upright, bountiful, and generous. The
lawful heiress of the empire, Isabella, governed the country together
with her husband, and led a pious, religious life. She was blessed
for her good deeds and exemplary life by many children, the numerous
offsprings of a famous race.(61) The first was the pious Leon, who is now
the anointed king, and after him Thoros, the blessed, who died the death
of a hero.(62) Isabella brought also into the world five daughters and
another son, Rouben, who died young. [Sidenote: 1252] The queen being
near the end of her life, and staying in a place called _Ked_, she heard
a voice from heaven, crying aloud, “come my dove, come my love, thy
end is near.” She felt joyful on this happy vision, imparted it to the
bystanders, and died in the Lord; her body was brought to the grave by a
large assembly of the priesthood and laid in consecrated earth.

After the death of the Queen, the King was much occupied in the
government of his country; for there arose an insolent people from the
north, called _Tatars_, and also called, after their country, Mugal or
Mogul,(63) who laid waste all the countries which fell into their hands.
The words of the prophet Jeremiah, that “the seething pot will run over
from the north,” have been found true a second time, this being the
case we must expect the same consequences. There were four kings, each
of whom was accompanied(64) by ten chiefs, which is even now the case.
These four kings met together with their ten followers; one arose and
spoke with a loud voice in this high assembly, and he being foremost in
power, was declared “_The son of God in heaven_.”(65) [Sidenote: 1254]
To him went king Hethum,(66) and there remained four years. Hethum had
considerable trouble, but he obtained friendly words, and a written
treaty after the custom of the Tatars.(67) He then came back with great
honours and conquered many provinces; he routed the armies of the
Persians or Turks,(68) and took their country; he won by force Carmania;
and Sebehesny was taken out of the hands of the Turks, whose splendour
faded away.(69) God’s will was changed, and he looked again on us with
a benevolent eye; the doors of heaven were opened to let through his
kindness on earth. The country was fruitful and happy like paradise, and
every man sat in peace, as it is said in the scriptures, under his own
vine. But the Armenians in Cilicia caused themselves, like in former
times, Sodom and Ghomora, by their intemperance and wickedness to be
very soon devoured by the wrathful fire(70) of heaven.

[Sidenote: 1265]

The proud slaves who governed Egypt took by force Damascus, very hard
pressed the Sultan of Berea or Aleppo, and conquered all the country
called by the name of Shem.(71) These slaves united themselves with all
the other Hagarenians, and it was as if the sand of the sea arose to
grasp swords and daggers, and to fight the battles of men; they went
against the Christians, like avengers sent from God. The sea-coast (from
Gaza to Cilicia) suffered in particular; all the forts were destroyed.
Antioch, the great Antioch, fell into their hands—they burned the houses,
and the inhabitants were carried away into foreign countries.(72)
Having taken possession of the before-mentioned territories, they went
against Cilicia, sent to Hethum and demanded tribute of him.(73) The
king collected his soldiery under the command of his sons, and hurried
himself away to the Moguls for aid.(74) He had not yet returned, when
the Hagarenians came into the country; the army fled, but the princes
remained. Thoros was killed in battle, and Leon was carried away
prisoner from his country. [Sidenote: 1266] This unfortunate country
was destroyed by fire, and the inhabitants were put to the sword; but
the forts, having received private encouragement from Leon, could not
be taken by the enemy, who retreated from them with shame. The famous
church in Sis and the town itself was given up to the flames, but the
inhabitants had time to fly.

Having done whatever they chose, the enemy returned to his own country
in great triumph, and with a large booty. After their departure Hethum
returned at the head of a Mogulian army into his own kingdom, and saw
all the misfortunes which had befallen him during his absence; he wept
bitterly, but he did not despair, and placed reliance on the mercy of
God. His son, who had been carried away a prisoner, being endowed with
a courageous nature, did not let his spirits droop or show any fear;
on the contrary, he cheered the captives and consoled every man; for
some he provided food, for others he paid their ransom and set them at
liberty. The army presented Leon to the Sultan, who continued in his own
country, and who, looking on Leon and hearing his wise speech, received
him graciously, and spoke very kindly to him. With the permission of the
Sultan, Leon went to Jerusalem to adore the holy cross, and to pray for
the remission of his sins. He then went back to Egypt, into that prison
where Joseph was in former times. The priests admonished him to think
only of God; moreover, he constantly read the Scriptures and was always
ways absorbed in prayer. Therefore God looked upon him with compassion,
and turned the heart of the Sultan to pity.

Leon, when taken prisoner, was thirty years of age; remaining one year
and ten months in Egypt, he made a treaty with the Sultan, which was
ratified by King Hethum his father. This being done, Leon was set at
liberty with great demonstrations of honour. The whole country rejoiced
when Leon returned to his father: crowds of people ran to meet and see
him; he embraced them all, and received them with heavenly kindness.
The king went, on foot, to thank God that he had lived so long as to
see his son Leon again, and [Sidenote: 1268] in the presence of the
highly-gifted patriarch Jacobus,(75) the follower of Constantine, he
earnestly entreated Leon to take on him the government of the country,
and to be anointed King of Cilicia; but Leon could not, by all his
entreaties, be moved to accept this offer; and Hethum was compelled,
therefore, to see his son only Baron of the Armenians, until he could
enjoy the kingdom. The king happened to fall sick at this time and never
recovered. There was consequently a great consternation in the country,
and the people united together to give him the surname of _Makar_.(76)
[Sidenote: 1269] Having finished this mortal, and gained an immortal
life, he was buried in Trassarg, and was celebrated in a poem. The Baron
Leon was so afflicted by the death of his father, that he fell into a
mortal sickness, and although all men supplicated him to be speedily
crowned King of Cilicia, he would not do it instantly, but mourned three
months. The neighbouring sovereigns, the Sultan of Egypt, the Khan, and
other princes, sent missions of peace to him, entreating that he might
be crowned King of Cilicia. Moved and encouraged by these messages, he
called a great assembly of Armenians to Tarsus with the patriarch to
anoint him, and to fulfil the duties of the church. Leon received the
sceptre with the golden globe in his right hand,—and the Holy Ghost
descended on him,—to be king on the house of Thorgoma; to govern and to
defend the flock after the law of God.

Leon, sitting on the throne of his forefathers, was gracious to every
body; he pardoned those who had offended him, and was in general
exceedingly humane; he augmented the officers of the royal household, and
held the clergy in high esteem. He provided for the poor ecclesiastics,
and generally for all poor people; in what place soever he stayed,
the indigent were provided for from the court. This being known, many
people came from foreign parts, soldiers and others, and remained months
although not invited; their expenses were payed by the court. Leon
benefited the clergy even more than his forefathers, and gave to the
Vartabeds their proper rank,(77) for he was a friend of learning;(78)
every person who was elevated to the dignity of a Vartabed received a
present from the king, and it was registered as an eternal remembrance.
The army received higher pay than before, and the king was so kind to
every body, so generous, so compassionate,(79) that all were delighted;
and the whole nation of Armenians became, as it were, renovated. Satan,
the author of all mischief, saw this, and he contrived to fight against
the king; he tempted him by misfortunes like Job; he tried him by many
wounds, but the king was found of more patience than even Job himself,
for Job spoke of his temptations with his friends, and uttered curses as
the misfortunes came one after the other.

[Sidenote: 1273]

Leon soon gained information of the plots of the chieftains of his own
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.

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.

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.

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?


Note (80), page 55.

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.


Note (81), page 57.

The Egyptians having retired, Leon went against their allies one by one.


Note (82), page 58.

The successor of Hulagou, khan of Persia.


Note (83), page 58.

Here Vahram calls even the Moguls Tadjiks,—is it because they governed
Persia?


Note (84), page 58.

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.


Note (85), page 59.

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.


Note (86), page 60.

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?




APPENDIX.

_Letters between Pope Innocent III. and Leon the First Armenian King of
Cilicia._


During the middle ages, the clergy governed the world, and the Pope, as
the head of the clergy, was also the head of what then was called the
Christian Republic. All transactions of any note are therefore contained,
or at least spoken of, in the vast collections of letters or Regesta
of the followers of St. Peter. To be united with the Roman Catholic
Church was, in fact, (particularly during the Crusades,) the same as
acknowledging the Pope as the supreme umpire, not only in the spiritual
but also in the civil government of the country; this is clearly to be
seen in the following letters. If the Popes could not speak to every king
as they did to the impotent sovereign of Cilicia, it was certainly not
their fault. The following letters exist only, as far as I know, in the
Latin tongue, and are taken from the _Regesta Innoc. III._, lib. ii., pp.
208, 209, 247, 44. I give the text of these letters according to Galanus,
who accompanied them with a translation into the Armenian language.
(Conciliat. Eccles. Arm. cum Romana. Romæ, 1650; vol. i., p. 357).

       *       *       *       *       *

Leo Armeniæ Rex, Reverendissimo in Christo Patri et Domino, Innocentio,
Dei gratia Summo Pont. et universali Papæ, tanto, ac tali honore
Dignissimo.

_De suo erga veram Religionem, et Sedem Apostolicam amore; et quod petat
auxilium contra Sarracenos._

Leo per eandem, et Romani Imperii gratiam Rex omnium Armeniorum,
cum salutatione seipsum, et quicquid potest. Gloria, laus, et honor
omnipotent Deo, qui Vos tantum, et talem pastorem Ecclesiæ suæ præesse
voluit, vestris bonis meritis exigentibus: et tam fructuosam, et firmam
fabricam super fundamentum Apostolorum componere, et tantum lumen, super
candelabrum positum, toti Orbi terrarum ad salutem totius Christianitatis
effundere dignatus est. In vestri vero luminis gratia, salutaribus
monitis Reverendiss. Patris nostri Archiepiscopi Moguntini,[4] instruct
et informati _omne Regnum nobis à Deo commissum, amplissimum, et
spatiosum, et omnes Armenios, huc illuc in remotis partibus diffusos, ad
unitatem Sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ_, divina inspirante dementia, _revocare
cupimus, et exoptamus_. Ad hæc calamitates, miserias, paupertates,
et imbecillitatem. Regni Syriæ,[5] et nostrum, per ipsum prædictum
Moguntinum (quia difficilior labor erat scripto retexere) Pietati vestræ
patefacimus. Ipse vero per singula rei veritatem vobis explicabit:
in cujus notitiam ista non præteriere. Hanc utique contritionem, et
collisionem in valle destituti lacrymarum jamdiu sustinuimus; quod de
cætero sine spe subsidii, et auxilii vestri sustinere nequimus. Verum
quia zelus domus Dei tepescere non debet in cordibus tam vestro, quam
nostro, non ut personam instruentis geramus, ejusdem domus decorem
diligere, et pro eadem domo murum nos oportet opponere; ut impetus, quem
super eam faciunt inimici Crucis, co-operante Dei gratia, collectis in
unum animi viribus, resistendo excludamus. Hinc est, quod vestram flexis
genibus imploramus pietatem, quatenus lacrymabilibus Domini Moguntini
precibus, et nostris divino intuitu aures misericordiæ porrigatis:
et miseriis Christianitatis compatientes, subsidium Christianissimum
nobis accurrendo mittatis, antequam irremeabile, quod absit, incurramus
diluvium; immo cum Dei, et vestro auxilio, evaginato ense, de Hur
Chaldæorum, et persecutione Pharaonis liberari possimus. Datum Tarsi,
anno ab incarnatione Domini, MCXCIX. mense Majo. die xxiij.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Innocentii III. ad præcedentem Leonis epist. responsio; qua laudat
illius studium erga Sedem Apost. cujus primatum demonstrat; hortatur, ut
in obedientia ejusdem S. Sedis fideliter perseveret; et subsidium contra
Sarracenos cito se missurum pollicetur._

Is Ecclesiam suam, congregatam ex gentibus, non habentem maculam, neque
rugam super gentes et Regna constituit; is extendit palmites ejus usque
ad mare, et usque ad terminos terræ ipsius propagines dilatavit; cujus
est terra, et plenitudo ejus, Orbis terrarum, et universi qui habitant in
eo, ipse etiam Romanam Ecclesiam non solum universis fidelibus prætulit,
sed supra cæteras Ecclesias exaltavit: ut cæteræ ab ea non tam vivendi
normam, et morum sumerent disciplinam, sed et fidei etiam catholicæ
documenta reciperent, et ejus servarent humiliter instituta. In Petro
enim Apostolorum Principe, cui excellentius aliis Dominus ligandi et
solvendi contulit potestatem, dicens ad eum: quodcunque ligaveris super
terram, erit ligatum et in cœlis: et quodcunque solveris super terram,
erit solutum et in cœlis: Ecclesia Romana, sedes ejus, et Sessores ipsius
Romani Pontifices, successores Petri, et vicarii Jesu Christi, sibi
invicem per successivas varietates temporum singulariter succedentes,
super Ecclesiis omnibus, et cunctis Ecclesiarum Prelatis, immo etiam
fidelibus universis a Domino primatum et magisterium acceperunt: vocatis
sic cæteris in partem solicitudinis, ut apud eos plenitudo resideat
potestatis. Non enim in Petro, et cum Petro singulare illud privilegium
expiravit, quod successoribus ejus futuris usque in finem Mundi
Dominus in ipso concessit; sed præter vitæ sanctitatem, et miraculorum
virtutes, par est in omnibus jurisdictio successorum; quos etsi diversis
temporibus, eidem tamen Sedi, et eadem auctoritate Dominus voluit
præsidere. Gaudemus autem, quod tu, sicut Princeps catholicus, Apostolicæ
Sedis privilegium recognoscens, venerabilem fratrem nostrum Moguntinum
Archiepiscopum, Episcopum Sabinensem, unum ex septem Episcopis, qui
nobis in Ecclesia Romana collaterales existunt, benigne, ac hilariter
recepisti; et non solum per eum institutis salutaribus es instructus,
quibus juxta continentiam litterarum tuarum totum Regnum tuum licet
amplissimum desideras informari, et universos Armenos ad Ecclesiæ Romanæ
gremium revocare; sed _ad honorem, et gloriam Apostolicæ Sedis, quam
constitutam esse novisti super gentes, et regna, diadema regni recepisti
de manibus ejus_; et eum curasti devote, ac humiliter honorare: et nos
per ipsum, et litteras tuas ad orientalis terræ subsidium invitasti. Ei
ergo, a quo est omne datum optimum, et omne donum, perfectum, qui habet
corda Principum in manu sua, quas possumus, gratias referentes, quod
tibi tantæ humilitatis animum inspiravit; rogamus Serenitatem Regiam,
et exhortamur in Domino, ac _per Apostolica tibi scripta mandamus_,
quatenus in timore Domini, et Apostolicæ Sedis devotione persistens,
ad expugnandam barbariem Paganorum, et vindicandam injuriam Crucifixi,
tanto potentius, et efficacius studeas imminere; quanto fraudes et
versutias hostium vicinius positus melius cognovisti: non in exercitus
multitudine, aut virtute, sed de ipsius potius miseratione confidens,
qui docet manus ad prælium, et digitos movet ad bellum; qu arcus
fortium superat, et robore accingit infirmos. Jam enim per Dei gratiam
ad commonitionem nostram multi Crucis signaculum receperunt, et plures
Domino dante recipient, in defensionem orientalis Provinciæ opportuno
tempore transituri. Jam etiam duo ex fratribus nostris de manibus nostris
vivificæ Crucis assumpsere vexillum, exercitum Domini præcessuri. Confide
igitur, et esto robustus, quia citius forsitan, quam credatur, orientalis
Provincia subsidium sentiet expectatum. Dat. Later. viii. kal. Decembris.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Idem Innocentius Papa ad illustriss. Regem Armeniæ. Quod ipsi
transmittat vexillum beati Petri, quo contra Crucis inimicos utatur._

_After some previous passages_:—Et tibi congaudemus, et Nobis, immo etiam
universo Populo Christiano; quod eum tibi Dominus inspiravit affectum,
ut Apostolicæ Sedis instituta devote reciperes, et præcepta fideliter
observares, et contra inimicos Crucis propositum illud assumeres, ut in
eos vindicare cupias injuriam Crucifixi, et hæreditatem ejus de ipsorum
manibus liberare. Nos igitur de tuæ devotionis sinceritate confisi, ad
petitionem dilecti filii Roberti de Margat militis, nuncii tui, in nostræ
dilectionis indicium, vexillum beati Petri tuæ Serenitati dirigimus; quo
in hostes Crucis duntaxat utaris, et eorum studeas contumaciam cum Dei
auxilio, suffragantibus Apostolorum Principis meritis, refrænare. Datum
Later. xvi. kal. Januarii.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Leonis Armeniæ Regis ad Innocentium III. epistola; qua ad præcedentem
respondet, et privilegium ab eo petit._

_After some other passages_:—Paternitatis vestræ litteras, quas per
dilectum fidelem Nuncium nostrum nobis direxistis, ea qua decuit
reverentia, et devotione suscepimus; et per earum significata pleno
collegimus intellectu, Vos charitatis visceribus Regiam Majestatem
nostram amplexari. Continebant etiam quod in devotione, et amore
Apostolicæ Sedis persisteremus; et in hoc semper perseverare cupimus;
et optamus, et testis est rerum effectus, dum _de omnibus negotiis
nostris ad Sedem Apostolicum appellamus_. Misistis autem nobis per eundem
Nuncium vexillum sancti Petri in memoriale dilectionis Sedis Apostolicæ,
quod semper ante nos portari contra inimicos Crucis ad honorem Sanctæ
Romanæ Ecclesiæ faciemus ... Præterea nos obedientiæ vinculis de
cætero Apostolicæ Sedi esse alligatos, non dubitetis; ea propter, si
placet Sanctitati vestræ, cuilibet alteri Ecclesiæ Latinæ nec volumus,
nec debemus alligari. Hinc est, quod Sanctitatem vestram humiliter
flagitamus, quatenus nobis litteras apertas mittere dignemini, ut non
teneamur videlicet cum Latinis de terra nostra de qualibet conditione,
excepta sancta Romana Ecclesia, cuilibet Ecclesiæ Latinæ: et quod non
habeat potestatem, nos, seu Latinos de terra nostra excommunicandi, vel
sententiam in Regno nostro proferendi super Latinos quælibet Ecclesia,
excepta, ut dictum est, Sede Apostolica.[6] Præsentium quoque latorem,
dilectum, et fidelem nostrum militem, nomine Garnere Teuto ad pedes
Sanctitatis vestræ dirigimus; cui super his, quæ ex parte nostra vobis
indixerit, tanquam Nobis ipsis credere, ne dubitetis, &c.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Ex indulto Regis Armeniæ, a Domino Papa Innocentio III. sibi facto._

Volentes igitur, quantum cum Deo possumus, tuæ Serenitati deferre,
et _cum honestate nostra petitineso Regias exaudire_; tuis precibus
inclinati, auctoritate præsentium inhibemus, ne quis in te, vel Regnum
tuum, aut homines Regni tui, cujuscunque conditionis existant qui
mediantibus tamen ejusdem Regni Prælatis, Sedi Apostolicæ sunt subjecti,
præter Romanum Pontificem, et ejus Legarum, vel de ipsius speciali
mandato, districtionem Ecclesiasticam audeat exercere,[7] &c.




CHRONOLOGY OF THE ARMENIAN BARONS AND KINGS OF CILICIA

(ACCORDING TO CHAMCHEAN.)


    Rouben I.                                   1080

    Constantine I.                              1095

    Thoros I.                                   1100

    Leon I.                                     1123

    _Interregnum_                               1138

    Thoros II.                                  1144

    Thomas Bail, regent                         1168

    Meleh                                       1169

    Rouben II.                                  1174

    Leon II.[8]                                 1185

    Sabel or Isabella, queen                    1219

    Philippus                                   1220

    _Interregnum_                               1222

    Hethum or Haithon I.                        1224

    Leon III.                                   1269

    Hethum II., also called Johannes            1289

    Thoros III.                                 1293

    Hethum II. (second time)                    1295

    Sembad                                      1296

    Constantine II.                             1298

    Hethum III.                                 1300

    Leon IV.                                    1305

    Odshin                                      1308

    Leon V.                                     1320

    Constantine III.                            1342

    Guido                                       1343

    Constantine IV.                             1345

    _Interregnum_                               1363

    Leon VI.                                    1368

    End of the Armenian kingdom in Cilicia      1375




FOOTNOTES


[1] Nicetas II. p. 148. I wonder that Montesquieu, in making use of this
passage of Nicetas (Grandeur et Decadence des Romains, ch. xxii.), has
not been struck with its incorrectness; it did not escape the critical
discernment of Gibbon: the Decline and Fall, etc. ch. 49. n. 17.

[2] Bruce’s Annals of the East-India Company, iii. 88. The mercantile
companies trading to different parts of Asia found every where the
Armenians in their way; the Armenians became jealous on the new intruders
of their commerce, and tried to remove them by intrigues. See Hanway, i.
303.

[3] Pompey the Great had vanquished the Albanians, who brought into
the field twelve thousand horse and sixty thousand foot. Plutarch in
Pompeio., t. ii. p. 1165. Gibbon, chap. xlvi. n. 6.

[4] See the Notes 53 and 54 to the text of Vahram’s Chronicle.

[5] This part of Palestine and Syria, which belonged to the Latins.

[6] Leon was on bad terms with the clergy of Antioch, and the latin
princes were eager to unite Cilicia with their dominions.

[7] There are some other matters, regarding the history of the Armenian
kingdom in Cilicia, spoken of in the _Regesta Innocentii III._; but it
is not our object to write the history of that kingdom. We only collect
materials for a future historian, who might certainly draw some other
valuable accounts from _Belouacensis Spec. Hist._, from _Sanutus_ and
from _Hayto_ or _Hethum’s Hist. Orient_. We may here observe, that
Vahram, who is eager to tell all that is to the honour and glory of the
Church, says nothing about the baptism of the great Chan of the Moguls.

[8] Leon was the first king, the former princes are only called barons of
Cilicia.




The Translator finds it necessary to remark for the information of the
reader of “_The History of Vartan_,” that, not being in this country when
the work went to press, there occurred some slight errors, particularly
in the orthography of proper names. We shall at present only notice the
following:—

    Preface, p.  vii, line  6, for _Esrick_ read _Esnik_.
             p. xxii, line 13, for _of_ Moh. read _before_ Moh.
             p.    5, line 21, for _Dadjgabdan_ read _Dadjgasdan_.
             p.   75, line 21, for _Bardesares_ read _Bardesanes_.


Transcriber’s Note

The errors above refer to a different book. The following probable
mistakes in _this_ one were noticed and changed.

  Page 69, “geoprapher” changed to “geographer” (the geographer
  alluded to)

  Page 73, “Amenian” changed to “Armenian” (printed in Armenian,
  at Venice)

  Page 73, “seasame” changed to “sesame” (abounding in sesame,
  panic, millet, wheat and barley)

  Page 76, “certrin” changed to “certain” (it is likewise certain
  that the language)

  Page 90, “Mogolian” changed to “Mongolian” (the head of the
  Mongolian confederacy)

  Page 91, “Quardo” changed to “Quadro” (Quadro della Storia)

  Page 92, “Palastine” changed to “Palestine” (our author means
  Palestine and Syria)

  Page 101, “calamitatess” changed to “calamitates” (Ad hæc
  calamitates, miserias, paupertates)

  Page 101, “omus” changed to “domus” (ejusdem domus decorem
  diligere)

  Page 101, “not ... faciuns” changed to “nos ... faciunt” (nos
  oportet opponere; ut impetus, quem super eam faciunt)

    LONDON:
    Printed by J. L. Cox, Great Queen Street,
    Lincoln’s-Inn Fields.