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 coequandus 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 (t?????? for ????a?), 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.

??????e d? fa???? a?t??? ???????? ? ???????, ????a t?? ?appad???a? ?at?d?ae? ?pa?ta? ??? ??a??t??? ?p???se? e?? t?? ?es?p?ta?a?, &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: ?? ??? t?? ??e???? ????? ?a? t? t?? S???? ?a? t?? ?????, p????? ??f???a? ?fa??? ?at? te t?? d???e?t?? ... ?a? ?? ?ss?????, ?a? ?? ???a???, ?a? ?? ??????? pa?ap??s??? t?? ????s?, ?a? p??? t??t??? ?a? p??? ???????? ... t??? ?f’ ??? S????? ?a????????, ?p’ a?t?? t?? S???? ??e????? ?a? ??aa???? ?a?e?s?a?. (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: ???e?a ta???fa??? te ?a? ?????????? ?de?e? ???es?? ??tad???s? p???s?ed?? ???a ?a? ???a; 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, t?? ??t?? t?? ?a???? p??s??a?? e??? ?a? F???????. 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? “??? ?a??a ?p? ????? ?at????a t??,” says Strabo, ?f???? ????sa, ?p?? ?at??eta? ? ?a?p???s??? ???, (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, ?? ?? d? p?e???? t?? S????? ??a? p??sa???e???ta?. (Strabo, Geogr. xi. 8, vol. ii. 430, ed. Tauchn.) I will only add, that the same Strabo thinks, that the Daci (?????) may in former times have been called DaÏ (????), but he distinguishes them from the Daae (??a?). (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 p?t?a? ????t???, “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 ????????? 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. ?? ?a?d??e?a p??s???e? p??????a, t?, te ??se?d??? ?a? ?????e???.—Strabo iii. 361, ed. Tauchn.

Note (51), page 43.

The old Samaria, called CÆsarea by Herodes, ?? ???d?? Sea??? ?p???ase?, 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 Wuh 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 (suh 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 ho, a character not to be found in Morrison’s Tonical Dictionary; it is composed out of the rad. 177, and the sound giving group ho, 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 ???????. 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 ????????????, 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 a?a????, “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?

---