Friar Julian. “Letter on the Life of the Tartars” (1238)

Introduction

The second translated text available here is the Letter on the Life of the Tartars [Epistula de vita Tartarorum], written by Friar Julian himself in 1238. It details his attempt to return to Magna Hungaria once more by papal command, only to find out that the entire country had been destroyed by the Mongols during his brief stay in Rome. In later 1237, he reached the northeastern principalities of Rus’, the principality of Vladimir-Suzdal, where he was plainly told by Prince Yuri Vsevelodovich that the Mongols were planning to attack Hungary. Moreover, the prince delivered a letter from the khan to the king of Hungary, threatening annihilation. He went then to Ryazan where he reunited with the two surviving friars from the third mission (two of them had gone to the Mordvins and had disappeared without a trace – almost certainly murdered). With the knowledge that Magna Hungaria had already been destroyed and the Mongols were encircling Rus’ for a planned attack in the late autumn, Friar Julian and his party left Ryazan and headed back to Europe to spread a much more urgent warning about the Mongols. They also wished to repeat the information about this alien people that they had learned from informants in the east. Julian and his party were very lucky. They left Ryazan in October or November, and the city was sacked by the Mongols in December, the entire population being put to the sword.

The letter written by Friar Julian himself likely dates from early 1238 when he would have returned to Europe. It was addressed to the bishop of Perugia, and we have good evidence that it was widely copied, and its details were shared by the ecclesiastical and secular magnates in the following years. The Chronica Maiora by English chronicler, Matthew Paris (d. 1259), for instance, already showed references to its contents (e.g., Matthew Paris’ account of the Mongol use of prisoners in assaults seems to be a paraphrase of Friar Julian).[1]

The Text: Manuscripts and Editions

Friar Julian: Letter on the Life of the Tartars

The result of the wide proliferation of Friar Julian’s epistle from its first inception was that several versions have survived. The edition published by Joseph von Hormayr in 1842 comes from an early Innsbruck manuscript made in the years immediately following Friar Julian’s publication of it.[2] The version published by Hormayr as well as another thirteenth-century manuscript kept in the Vatican Apostolic Library formed the basis of Heinrich Dörrie’s critical edition of Julian’s epistle (1956). Like with the earlier text by Friar Riccardus, the English-language translation of Friar Julian’s letter on this website is entirely based on Dörrie’s edition of the text.

The translations provided on this website are thus the Latin text editions of both the report of Friar Riccardus and that of Friar Julian as they appear in Dörrie’s 1950s publication. These texts were consulted directly and by making use of Roman Hautala’s 2015 book which reproduced them along with Russian translations of both.

It should be noted that state of the art critical editions recently have been completed by Roman Hautala and myself; they made direct use of manuscripts that were not consulted in earlier works including the earliest, albeit incomplete copy of Friar Julian’s letter which is contained in the codex of 1241 from the Benedictine abbey of Ottobeuren in Swabia. That manuscript is part of the Ottobeuren collection of documents assembled already in early 1241 – making it a very early copy of Friar Julian’s letter.

The forthcoming CEMT book provides copious introductions and annotations that reflect the latest manuscript studies and scholarly debates on the questions surrounding Friar Julian’s mission. Those versions of the text are thus somewhat different from Dörrie’ editions and should be consulted separately in a coming volume of the Central European University’s CEMT (Central European Medieval Texts) series in 2024. The texts of Friar Riccardus and Julian are placed within the larger anthology of medieval Latin and French sources – often of Dominican provenance – that detail events tied to the Mongol invasion of East-Central Europe in 1241-42. Many of the sources have never been translated into English. As for the present work, however, it still represents very good and reliable editions and translations of the Friar Riccardus and Friar Julian texts. Its aims and analysis very much fit the focus of the RSF project that has been generously supported for several years and carried out at Saint Petersburg State University under the leadership of Prof. Alexander Maiorov.

Translation Issues: “Ruscia,” “Rutheni,” Mongolian proper nouns in the Letter on the Life of the Tartars by Friar Julian

The terms Ruscia and Ruteni/Rutheni used in these two Latin texts can cause confusion for a modern reader. If perceived from a modern or Early Modern perspective, the earlier medieval terminology related to Kievan Rus’ could be misinterpreted as connoting modern ideas of distinct Ruthenian and Russian ethnicity. Yet, such strong distinctions emerged from developments in the later medieval period when Poland-Lithuania expanded southeastward to the Black Sea in the later fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, solidifying something of a political-cultural barrier in the area of Kievan Rus’. On analysis, it does not appear that these terms are being used interchangeably in the two texts from the 1230s which would reflect a sort of sloppy indifference in the writings of Western Latin authors toward the Eastern Slavic peoples. Allowing for minor and insignificant spelling variations at times, both Ruscia and Ruteni/Rutheni possess distinct meanings and are used throughout both texts consistently.

The term Ruscia, in these texts, consistently refers to the political-geographic space that comprised the principalities of Kievan Rus’. It was the land of the Rus’ where their princes held sway. Because of the term’s obvious similarity to modern ones (i.e., Russia, Россия), as well as the fact that overt ethnic distinctions did not yet separate this region’s western and southern parts from those in the northeast, it makes the most sense to translate this as Russia – a term that obviously stems from Ruscia in Western European languages. In Riccardus we see this political-geographic meaning with “per Rusciam” being used to indicate travelling through Russia. In Julian’s report we see the same type of usage with “in finibus Ruscie” – “in the borders of Russia” and “totam Rusciam” – “all of Russia.” From an analysis of the texts, Ruscia always seems to be referring to the political-geographical space itself.

Regarding Ruteni or its spelling variation of Rutheni, this term signifies the ethnicity, language, or the people of Ruscia themselves – at least as the term is being used in these two Latin texts of the 1230s. Since this term seems to reflect an earlier and established tradition in Latin writing to render the name of the Rus’, it would be most fitting to indeed render this term as “Rus’” in the English translation – a choice which captures the term’s aura of antiquity while avoiding the pitfall of drawing a direct one-to-one equivalence of the Rus’ people of the pre-Mongol period with the modern Russian ethnicity. That would overlook that parts of today’s Belarus and Ukraine comprised part of the Kievan Rus’ sphere in the thirteenth century and earlier. As an example of the consistent usage of Ruteni/Rutheni to specifically denote the people (ethno-linguistic group) in the thirteenth-century texts, we see Riccardus using, for instance, “terra Ruthenorum” (the land of the Rus’), and “Ruthenicum” to denote the language of the Rus’ people. We see in Julian’s own letter, “alius ducatus Rutenorum” (another duke of the Rus’), “clericus Ruthenorum” (a cleric of the Rus’), and “Ruteni/Rutheni” (Rus’ people in the plural).

This terminological division in European texts composed in Latin remained consistent in the medieval context, appearing in the fourteenth-century Illuminated Chronicle of Hungary for example. The following sentence is illustrative: “Post hec autem rex invasit Rusciam et ducissa Rutenorum nomine Lanca venit obviam regi…”[3] We see clearly that Ruscia denotes the geographical-political space while its people and their duchess by ethnicity are Ruteni. In the later Middle Ages, Poland-Lithuania’s expansion brought large parts of the former Kievan Rus’ under its control. For their new subjects, the Polish-Lithuanian administration employed a term traditionally employed in Latin for people who professed Eastern Orthodoxy and spoke Eastern Slavic dialects. Of course, distinct identities emerged from the political divisions following the Mongol invasion (1237-1240) and conquest. However, in the era of Julian and his contemporaries, the textual evidence does not reflect a political need to distinguish a Ruthene, so to speak, from his or her homeland of Ruscia. Political, linguistic, and ethnic boundaries that clearly separated a “Ruthenia” from “Russia” were developments that followed gradually in the decades and centuries after the initial Mongol invasion and conquest of the region.

Interestingly, some proper nouns in Julian’s own epistle that designate Mongols themselves show signs of having come through his Rus’ informants, and likely these had earlier originated from Cuman-Qipchaqs who, we know, acted as interpreters between the Rus’ and Turkic speakers on the Mongol Empire’s side. Chinggis Khan’s name is rendered by Friar Julian as the barely recognizable Gurgutam, but this becomes understandable when we see that the recorded oral testimony of a Russian bishop given at the 1244 Council of Lyon has the Mongol Empire’s founder as “Chiarthan,” “Chiarchan,” and “Chyrcan” in different instances.[4] We see “Curceuzam” as the person who slew the sultan of Ornach (the Khwarazmian sultan, Muhammad II) and went on to conquer a mighty empire, inflicting devastation wherever his forces went. We encounter similar but even earlier renditions of the names of Chinggis Khan and his son Jochi in Russian sources if we accept the contention that the Novgorod First Chronicle’s mention of Mongol commanders named “Tsigirkan” (Цьгырканъ) and “Teshukan” (Тешюканъ) are confused and largely overlooked references to the supreme commanders – Chinggis Khan and Jochi Khan respectively.[5]

The references in Friar Julian’s epistle to Chayn,[6] the successor of Chinggis Khan ruling from a Mongolian capital city called “Hornach,” mirror the later testimony of the Russian bishop, Peter, at Lyon in 1244. Bishop Peter stated that one of Chinggis Khan’s sons resided in the Mongol Empire’s capital of “Ernac” or “Ornach” from which he commanded the various princes to invade Russia, Poland, Hungary, etc.[7] Julian’s description of a palace would fit with Ögödei Khan’s establishment of a capital and the building of “a palace exceedingly tall and with lofty pillars” at Qaraqorum during the period when the westward campaign was being waged according to Persian Ilkhanate vizier and historian, Rashid al-Din (1247-1318).[8] As Peter Jackson notes, however, Ornach is a name that appears in Rus’ sources for Ürgench.[9] That was a major city on the Amu Darya River near the Aral Sea in the thirteenth century. It makes sense that Friar Julian or his informant would mistakenly refer to that city as the Mongol khan’s capital since it was formerly the most prominent city of the Khwarzmian Shah, and it was taken in a hard-fought siege by Chinggis Khan’s sons, including Ögödei, in 1221. Carpini and Benedict the Pole both referred to “Ornas” as a city the Mongols took by flooding it with water.[10]

Regarding this error – Ögödei Khan did not rule from Urgench, but rather Qaraqorum in Mongolia – it seems that Friar Julian or his Rus’ informant(s) mistakenly thought that Ögödei had made the more established Ürgench his capital city and the site of palace construction, rather than Tana or Otrar as have been long suggested in the research literature,[11] or some yet unidentified site. In several cases, then, it appears that Julian’s descriptions bear a relation to actual realities in the Mongol Empire and his usage of proper nouns likely stems from Rus’ intermediaries and informants though the inhabitants of Magna Hungaria also provided him details.

As a last note on idiomatic choices made in the translation of both texts, the term frater in Latin has been rendered consistently as “brother” to keep some of the flavour of the original text rather than opting for the admittedly less ambiguous “friar.” The English-language term “friar” of course originates via French from the Latin frater. Using “brother” in the context of these texts seems to preserve the intentions and sense of close community exhibited by friars in the early Mendicant movement.

Translation 2:
Letter on the Life of the Tartars Friar Julian, 1238
Epistula de vita Tartarorum

To the venerable man, father in Christ, by the grace of God bishop of Perugia, legate of the apostolic see; Friar Julian from the Order of Preaching Brothers [Dominicans] in Hungary, the servant of your holiness, offers his owed and devoted respect.

Viro venerabili in Christo patri, Dei gratia Perusino episcopo, apostolice sedis legato, frater Iulianus fratrum Ordinis Predicatorum in Ungaria servus vestre sanctitatis reverentiam tam debitam quam devotam.

Julian’s preface

Iul. Prooem

1 When, in accordance with the prescribed obedience,[12] I had to go to Great Hungary with the brothers who joined me, [and] when desiring to complete the ordained journey, we arrived at the farthest borders of Russia [Prussia?][13] and heard the truth that all the Tatars,[14] 2 who are also called pagan Hungarians, and the Bulgars, and many other kingdoms have been totally devastated by the Tartars. 3 And who these Tartars are, and to which sect they belong, we will describe to you with the content of the present [work] as best as we can.

1 Cum secundum iniunctam mihi obedientiam ire deberem ad magnam Ungariam cum fratribus mihi adiunctis, iniunctum nobis iter arripere cupientes, cum ad ultimos fines Brussie devenissemus, rei dedicimus veritatem, 2 quod omnes Thatari qui etiam Ungari pagani vocantur, et Bulgari, et regna quam plurima a Tartaris penitus sunt devastata. 3 Quid autem sint Thartari, cuiusve secte sint prout melius potuimus, directe vobis tenore presentium enarrabo.

1, 1 It was related to me by several people that the Tartars formerly inhabited the land which the Cumans now inhabit, and are called in fact sons of Ishmael, which is why the Tartars now want to be called “Ishmaelites.” 2 But the land from which they first came forth is called Gothia,[15] which Ruben [earlier] called Gothia.

1, 1 Relatum est michi a quibusdam, quod Tartari inhabitabant terram prius quam nunc Cumani inhabitant et dicuntur in veritate filii Ysmahel, unde et Ysmahelite volunt nunc Tartari vocari. 2 Terra autem de qua prius sunt egressi Gotta vocatur quam Ruben Gottam vocavit.

3 The first war of the Tartars began in this way: 4 There was a ruler in the land of Gothia, named Chinggis Khan [Gurgutam], who had a virgin sister that watched over her family after the death of her parents, and is said to have had such masculine virtues that she conducted herself like a man.[16] 5 She defeated a certain neighboring leader and plundered his goods. 6 But after some time passed, when the Tartar nation desired to attack the aforementioned ruler once more like previously, 7 he was on his guard, committed to battle and prevailed in the fighting with the girl. He took his earlier adversary captive, 8 and as her army turned in flight, he defiled her in captivity, and having raped her as a sign of the highest revenge, shamefully beheaded her.

3 Primum autem bellum Tartarorum taliter est inchoatum: 4 Dux erat in terra Gotta, Gurgutam nomine qui sororem habebat virginem parentibus defunctis sue familie presidentem, et more virili ut dicitur se gerentem. 5 Expugnavit quendam ducem vicinum, et eundem bonis suis spoliavit. 6 Elapsis autem quibusdam temporibus, cum ducem iterum predictum Tartarorum natio sicut consueverat expugnare niteretur, 7 ille sibi precavens commisso bello cum puella supradicta prevaluit in pugnando, et eam quam prius habuit adversariam captivavit, 8 conversoque in fugam suo exercitu ipsam in captivitate positam violavit et in signum maioris vindicte defloratam turpiter decollavit.

9 When the brother of the girl, the aforementioned ruler Chinggis Khan, heard this, he sent a messenger to deliver the following mandate, so it is said, to the previously mentioned man: 10 “I have heard that you beheaded my sister, after having captured and raped her. 11 Know that you have carried out a hostile act against me. 12 If my sister had perhaps caused you damage to your movable property, you could have approached me and asked for impartial justice upon her, 13 or if you wanted to take revenge on her with your own hands, having defeated her, taken her captive and raped her, you could have taken her then as a wife. 14 And if you had in mind to kill her, by no means should you have raped her. 15 But now you have transgressed in two ways: you have done shame to her virginal modesty and you condemned her to a pitiful death. 16 Know that because of this, and to vindicate the murder of that girl, I will come against you with all my force.” 17 Hearing this and seeing that he was unable to offer resistance, the ruler who perpetrated the murder fled with his [followers] to the Sultan of Urgench [Khwarazm], having abandoned his own territory.

9 Quo audito frater puelle memorate Gurgutam supradictus dux nuntio ad prefatum virum delegato tale fertur mandatum transmisisse: 10 “Intellexi quod sororem meam captam et defloratam decollasti. 11 Noveris te opus mihi contrarium exegisse. 12 Si soror mea tibi forsitan fuit inquieta dampnificans te in rebus mobilibus, poteras ad me accedere equum de ea iudicium petiturus, 13 vel si volens te propriis manibus vindicare debellatam captivasti et deflorasti, ducere poteras in uxorem. 14 Si autem eam occidendi propositum habuisti, nullatenus debueras eam deflorare. 15 Nunc vero in duobus damnificans et virginali pudicicie turpitudinem intulisti et capitali eam morte miserabiliter condemnasti. 16 Propter quod in vindictam necis puelle nominate scias, me tecum totis viribus congressurum.” 17 Hoc audiens dux necis perpetrator et videns, se non posse resistere, fugit cum suis ad Soldanum de Hornach terra propria derelicta.

18 While these things were happening, there was a certain ruler in the land of the Cumans, named Euthet,[17] whose wealth was so extraordinarily renowned that even his herds in the fields were watered from golden channels.[18] 19 Another ruler of the Cumans from the river Buchs named Gureg attacked him because of his wealth and utterly defeated him.[19] 20 Euthet, having been defeated, fled to the aforementioned Sultan of Urgench with his two sons and those few who had managed to escape death in the war. 21 But the Sultan, remembering the former injury that Euthet had done him because he had been his neighbour, hanged him in the gate after having received him, and subjugated the people under his leadership. 22 But the two sons of Euthet immediately took flight, and because they had no other refuge, they returned to the aforementioned Gureg who had previously plundered their father and them as well. 23 Impelled by deadly rage, he killed the older son by having him torn apart with horses. 24 But the younger came fleeing to Chinggis Khan the ruler of the Tartars, who has already been named, begging him earnestly to take vengeance on Gureg who had plundered his father and killed his brother. 25 He said these two things – namely that Chinggis Khan would have the glory if he [the son] had compensation and revenge for the murder of his father and the robbery of his brother. 26 And so it happened.[20]

18 His itaque gestis erat dux quidam in terra Cumanorum, nomine Euthet, cuius divitie tam preclare predicantur quod etiam pecora in campis in aureis canalibus adaquabantur. 19 Quem dux alius Cumanorum de flumine Buchs, nomine Gureg, expugnavit propter divitias et devicit. 20 Qui devictus cum duobus filiis suis et quibusdam paucis qui de belli periculo evaserant, ad iam dictum 21 Soldanum de Hornach transfugerunt. Soldanus vero memor iniurie quam sibi quondam forte intulerat quia vicinus extiterat, receptum in porta ipsum suspendit et populum suo dominio subiugavit. 22 Duo vero filii Euthet fugam protinus arripuerunt, et quia refugium alias non habebant, ad prefatum Gureg qui patrem eorum et eosdem ante spoliaverat, sunt reversi. 23 Qui ferali concitatus rabie cum equis cupiens maiorem interficere; 24 minor autem fugiens venit ad Gurgutam ducem Tartarorum iam ante nominatum, rogans obnixius ut de Gureg, qui patrem spoliavit et fratrem interfecit, vindictam exerceret, 25 dicens ista duo, videlicet quod Gurgutam honor remaneret et sibi pro nece fratris et patris spolio retributio fieret et vindicta. 26 Quod ita factum est.

27 Then, having won victory, the aforementioned youth again beseeched the ruler Chinggis Khan to take revenge on the Sultan of Urgench for the pitiful murder of his father, 28 saying that the people left behind there by his father, and kept as captives as it were, would support his army in its advance. 29 He [Chinggis Khan], already out of control in heart and mind from his double victory, thoughtfully agreed to what the youth proposed, and having advanced against the Sultan, won a glorious and resounding victory. 30 Therefore, as he could rely on laudable victory almost everywhere, Chinggis Khan, aforementioned ruler of the Tartars, initiated war against the Persians with all haste for past wars they had previously had with each other. 31 There he won a glorious victory and completely subjugated the kingdom of the Persians.

27 Ac habita victoria rogavit iterum ducem Gurgutam iuvenis prefatus, ut de Soldano de Hornach vindictam acciperet pro miserabili nece patris, 28 dicens quod etiam populus relictus a patre qui ibi quasi captivus tenebatur, esset sibi presidio sui exercitus in progressu. 29 Ille iam de victoria duplici corde et animo debacchatus sedulo concessit quod iuvenis postulavit, et egressus contra Soldanum victoriam habuit sibi glorificam et honestam. 30 Igitur quasi undique victoria fretus laudabili Gurgutam supradictus dux Tartarorum cum toto impetu belli progressum fecit contra Persas pro quibusdam guerris quas primitus habebant ad invicem, 31 ubi victoriam habuit perhonestam et regnum Persarum sibi totaliter subiugatvit.

32 From these victories he became more daring and, considering himself stronger than everyone on the Earth, he began to advance against kingdoms, seeking to subjugate the whole world to himself. [21] 33 Coming to the land of the Cumans, he conquered their land and subjugated them. 34 From there, they went back to the Greater Hungary from which our Hungarians originate, and battled them for fourteen years – and in the fifteenth year, they [the Mongols] prevailed over them as these pagan Hungarians themselves told us. 35 Conquering them, they returned against the West and in the space of a year, or a little more, conquered five great kingdoms of pagans; they conquered Saqsin and Merowia, subdued the Kingdom of the Bulgars, and captured sixty most strongly fortified cities that were so populous that one of them could field 50,000 armed soldiers.[22] 36 Besides they also conquered Wedin,[23] Merowia, Poydowia,[24] and the kingdom of the Mordvins who had two rulers. 37 The one ruler with all his people and family submitted to the lordship of the Tartars, 38 but the other went with a small number of his people to very strongly defensible places to try to hold out.

32 Ex his audacior effectus et fortiorem se reputans omnibus super terram progressum cepit facere contra regna, totum mundum sibi subiugare proponens. 33 Unde ad terram Cumanorum accedens, ipsos Cumanos superavit terram sibi subiugans eorum. 34 Inde reversi ad magnam Ungariam a quibus nostri Ungari originem habuerunt, expugnaverunt eos quatuordecim annis et in quinto decimo obtinuerunt eos, sicut nobis ipsi pagani Ungari rettulerunt viva voce. 35 Illis obtentis reversi versus occidentem spatio unius anni vel parum amplius quinque regna maxima paganorum obtinuerunt Sasciam Merowiam, regnum expugnarunt Bulgarum, etiam sexaginta castra munitissima capiebant tam populosa, quod de uno eorum poterant exire quinquaginta milia militum armatorum. 36 Ceterum et Wedin et Merowiam Poydowiam Mordanorum regnum expugnabant, cuius duo principes fuerunt. 37 Et unus princeps cum toto populo et familia Tartarorum domino se subiecerat, 38 alter vero munitissima loca ad tuendum se petiit cum paucis populis si valeret.

2, 1 But now, when we were staying at that time in the border area of Russia, we heard the true situation that the whole army of Tartars coming against the West is divided in four parts. 2 One part moved to Suzdal from the Volga River [Ethil] on the eastern borders of Russia. 3 Another part has already moved against the southern borders of Ryazan, which is another principality of the Rus’ which they [the Tartars] have never conquered. 4 The third part is opposite the River Don, near the fortress [city] of Oregenhusin [Voronezh] which is another principality of the Rus’.[25] 5 Yet, they [the Tartars] are waiting – as the same Rus’, Hungarians, and Bulgars who had fled from them told us personally – 6 until the ground, rivers, and swamps freeze in the coming winter which will make it easy for the whole multitude of them to plunder the whole of Russia, along with the whole land of the Rus’.[26]

2, 1 Nunc autem cum nos in finibus Ruscie maneremus, prope rei sensimus veritatem, quod totus exercitus Tartarorum veniens ad partes occidentis, in quatuor partes est divisus. 2 Una pars ad fluvium Ethil in finibus Ruscie a plaga orientali ad Sudal applicuit; 3 altera vero pars versus meridiem iam fines Risennie, quod est alius ducatus Rutenorum, quam numquam expugnabant; 4 tertia autem pars contra fluvium Denh prope castrum Orgenhusin qui est alius ducatus Rutenorum residebat. 5 Hoc tamen expectantes quod sicut et ipsi Ruteni, Ungari, et Bulgari qui ante eos fugerant viva voce nobis referebant: 6 quod terra fluviis et paludibus in proxima hieme congelatis totam Rusciam toti multitudini sic facile est eis depredari sicut totam terram Rutenorum.

7 Nevertheless, thus you should know that this Chinggis Khan, the first ruler who began the war, is dead. 8 And now his son, Khan, rules in his place and resides in the great city of Urgench [Hornach],[27] whose kingdom his father first conquered. 9 And he resides there is such a manner:

7 Sic tamen intelligatis hec omnia quod ille Gurgutam dux primus qui bellum inchoavit est defunctus. 8 Nunc autem filius eius Chayn regnat pro eodem et residet in civitate magna Hornach cuius regnum obtinuit pater eius prima fronte. 9 Residet autem tali modo:

He has a palace so big that a thousand horsemen enter by one gate and, bowing to him, the same horsemen nevertheless take their exit sitting on horseback.[28] 10 The aforementioned ruler made for himself an enormous and high couch, resting on pillars of gold – 11 a golden bed, indeed,[29] covered most preciously,[30] on which he sits, glorious and being glorified, draped in most valuable garments. 12 Moreover, the gates of this same palace are completely of gold – gates through which his horsemen enter safely and securely.[31] 13 But if foreign emissaries, on horseback or on foot, pass through the gate and touch with their feet the threshold of the gate, they will be cut down by the sword; every foreigner must step over it with the greatest respect.[32]

Palatium habet tam magnum quod mille equites intrant per unum ostium et eidem inclinantes equites exeunt nihilominus insidentes. 10 Dux autem prefatus paravit sibi lectum pergrandem et altum columnis aureis innixum, 11 lectum inquam aureum et pretiosissime coopertum, in quo sedet gloriosus et glorificatus pretiosis circumdatus indumentis. 12 Ostia autem ipsius palatii per totum aurea sunt per que equites sui transeunt incolumes et immunes. 13 Alieni vero nuntii si equites transeunt ostia vel pedites, si pedibus limen ostii tangunt, ibidem gladio feriuntur; sed cum summa reverentia oportet alienum quemlibet transire.

14 Residing in such splendor, he sent armies to diverse lands, namely beyond the sea,[33] as we believe, and the extent of what he did there, you might have heard. 15 But he has sent another enormous army near the sea against the Cumans who have fled to the lands of the Hungarians. And the third army is besieging the whole of Russia as I have mentioned.[34]

14 In tali ergo pompa residens misit exercitus per diversas terras, videlicet ultra mare, sicut credimus, et quanta ibi fecerit, etiam vos audivistis. 15 Alium autem exercitum copiosum misit iuxta mare super omnes Cumanos, qui ad partes Ungarie transfugerunt. Tertius autem exercitus obsidet totam Rusciam sicut dixi.

3, 1 To tell you the truth about how they wage war, it is said they shoot arrows farther than other nations tended to do. 2 And in the first meeting of battle, they are said not to shoot but rather appear to “rain” arrows. With swords and spears, they are said to be less skilled in battle. 3 They organize their units in such a way that one Tartar commands ten men, and further, one centurion commands a hundred men.[35] 4 They do this so skillfully that spies, coming over to them, cannot by some means hide among them; and if, perhaps, the number of them is diminished because of war, they can be replaced without delay. And the collected people from diverse regions cannot commit any betrayal of them because the Tartars grouped them together from diverse languages and nations.[36] 5 From all of the kingdoms they conquered, they kill without delay the kings, dukes, and magnates – of whom there is hope that they could on some occasion offer resistance. 6 Moreover, soldiers and strong farmers they drive in front of themselves, armed for battle against their will. 7 But other farmers, less suited for war, they leave behind to cultivate the fields, and they divide the wives, daughters, and female relatives of everyone – both those forced into war and those who have been killed – among the men left behind to cultivate the fields,[37] assigning to them ten or more women. And they command them henceforth to be called Tartars.[38]

3, 1 Verum ut de bello vobis significarem, dicitur quod longius iaciunt sagittis quam cetere consueverint nationes. 2 Et in prima congressione belli sicut dicitur non sagittant sed quasi pluere sagitte videntur; gladiis et lanceis dicuntur minus apti ad bellum. 3 Taliter enim suum cuneum ordinant quod decem hominibus unus Tartar preest, iterum centum hominibus unus centurio. 4 Hoc ideo tali astutia faciunt, ne exploratores supervenientes possint aliquatenus latere inter eos, et si forte [contingeret] numerum eorundem diminui propter bellum, possit restitui sine mora, et populus collectus ex diversis infidelitatem aliquam facere non possit, quem ex diversis linguis et nationibus collegerunt. 5 Omnium regnorum que obtinent, reges et duces et magnates, de quibus est spes quod aliquando possint facere resistentiam, interficiunt sine mora. 6 Milites autem et rusticos fortes ad prelium ante se mittunt armatos ad preliandum sine sponte. 7 Alios autem rusticos ad preliandum minus aptos relinquunt ad excolendam terram, et omnium (tam ad prelium compulsorum quam occisorum) uxores et filias et cognatas dividunt ad singulos viros cultui terre relictos cuilibet decem vel plures assignantes, et imponunt eisdem ut Tartari de cetero nuncupentur.

8 As for the soldiers who are driven together into battle, if they fight well and win – little thanks [for them]; and indeed, if they die in the fighting – who cares [about them]! 9 But if they retreat from the fighting, they are immediately killed by the Tartars, and thus those fighting desire to die in the battle rather than to be struck down by the swords of the Tartars. 10 So, they fight harder not to keep living, but rather to die quickly.[39] 11 They [the Tartars] do not assault fortified cities,[40] but first devastate the countryside and take captive the population, then the gather together the people of the same land and force these people themselves to fight to conquer their own fortress. 12 Moreover, I am not writing anything to you on the size of their army, except that from all the kingdoms it has conquered, they drive the soldiers suited to fight in front of them into battle.

8 Milites vero, qui ad preliandum compelluntur, si bene pugnant et vincunt – parva gratia; si vero in prelio moriuntur, – nulla cura! 9 Si vero in prelio retrocedunt, sine mora a Tartaris occiduntur; ideoque preliantes appetunt occidi potius in prelio quam gladiis Tartarorum feriri. 10 Pugnant ergo fortius non ut vivant in posterum, sed ut citius moriantur. 11 Castra munita non expugnant, sed prius terram devastant et populum depredantur, et eiusdem terre populum simul congregant et compellunt ad pugnam ad expugnandum ipsum suum castrum. 12 De multitudine autem ipsius exercitus vobis aliquid non scribo, nisi etiam quod omnium regnorum que obtinuit milites ad pugnam aptos ante se compellit preliari.

4, 1 Many people say it is certain, and the duke of Suzdal orally entrusted me to convey to the king of Hungary that day and night, the Tartars hold councils on how to defeat and conquer the Christian Hungarian kingdom.[41] 2 For it is said they have the intention to come and conquer Rome, and beyond Rome.[42]

4, 1 Fertur a pluribus re certa, et dux Sudal mandavit per me regi Ungarie viva voce, quod die noctuque consilium habent Tartari qualiter vincant et obtineant regnum Ungarie christianum. 2 Propositum enim habere dicuntur quod veniant et expugnent Romam et ultra Romam.

3 It is for that reason that [the khan] sent emissaries to the king of Hungary who, coming by way of the land of Suzdal, were taken prisoner by the duke of Suzdal, and he received from them the letter being sent to the king. 4 I, along with my assigned companions, have seen those same emissaries. 5 The aforementioned letter, having been given to me by the duke of Suzdal, I delivered to the king of the Hungarians. 6 Moreover, the letter is in the pagan script, but in the Tartar language. 7 Which is why the king [of Hungary] found many who could read it but nobody who could understand it. 8 But as we were crossing through Cumania, we found a pagan who interpreted it for us. And this is the translation:

3 Unde legatos misit regi Ungarie qui venientes per terram Sudal captivati sunt a duce de Sudal, et litteras regi missas dux ille recepit ab eis; 4 et legatos ipsos cum sociis mihi deputatis etiam vidi; 5 predictas litteras a duce de Sudal mihi datas ad regem Ungarie deportavi. 6 Littere autem scripte sunt litteris paganis sed lingua Tartarica. 7 Unde rex eas qui possint legere multos invenit sed intelligentes nullos invenit. 8 Nos autem cum transiremus per Cumaniam paganum quendam invenimus qui eas nobis est interpretatus. Est autem hec interpretatio:

9 “I, Khan,[43] the emissary of the heavenly king, to whom he gave power over the Earth to lift up those who subject themselves to me and lay low those who resist, am amazed at you, king of Hungary – that when I will have sent you envoys thirty times, you do not send any of them back to me; 10 rather you send me neither your messengers nor letters. 11 I know that you are a wealthy and powerful king, that you have many soldiers under you, and alone you rule a great kingdom. 12 And, therefore, it is difficult for you to submit yourself to me voluntarily. However, it would be better and more beneficial if you were to voluntarily submit to me! 13 I have understood, in addition, that you are keeping the Cumans, my slaves, under your protection, 14 for which reason I command you to not keep them with you any longer, and do not have me as your enemy because of them! 15 It is easier for them to escape than you because they, lacking houses and migrating about with tents, might perhaps get away. 16 But you, living in houses, having castles and cities – how will you escape my hands?”[44]

9 “Ego, Chayn, nuncius regis celestis, cui dedit potentiam super terram subicientes mihi se exaltare et deprimere adversantes, miror de te, rex Ungarie, quod cum miserim ad te iam tricesima vice legatos, quare ad me nullum remittis ex eisdem; 10 sed nec nuntios tuos vel litteras mihi remittis. 11 Scio quod rex dives es et potens, et multos sub te habes milites, solusque gubernas magnum regnum. 12 Ideoque difficile sponte tua te mihi subicis; melius tamen tibi esset et salubrius, si te subiceres sponte mihi! 13 Intellexi insuper quod Cumanos servos meos sub tua protectione detineas. 14 Unde mando tibi quod eos de cetero apud te non teneas, et me adversarium tibi non habeas propter ipsos! 15 Facilius est enim eis evadere quam tibi, quia illi sine domibus cum tentoriis ambulantes possunt fortisan evadere. 16 Tu autem in domibus habitans, habens castra et civitates, qualiter effugies manus meas?”

5, 1 But I will not neglect to mention this. When I was staying in the Roman Curia a second time, four of my brothers went before me to Great Hungary. Crossing through the land of Suzdal, in the borders of that kingdom, they met some pagan Hungarians fleeing from the face of the Tartars who [said they] would accept the Catholic faith willingly while they were on their way to Christian Hungary. 2 Hearing this, the aforementioned duke of Suzdal angrily forbade the Dominican brothers from preaching, lest the pagan Hungarians convert to the Catholic faith, and because of this he expelled the aforementioned friars from his land, although without causing trouble. 3 Not desiring to turn back and easily abandon the path they had made, they turned to the city of Ryazan to see if they could find a way to Great Hungary, or the Mordvins, or the Tartars themselves. 4 Moreover, leaving two of the brothers behind there, [the other two] led by interpreters came to one of the two rulers of the Mordvins after the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul. The same day that they came, he went out with his entire people and family, as mentioned above, and submitted to the Tartars. 5 Since then, what happened to these two brothers – whether they died or were handed over to the Tartars by the aforementioned ruler – is totally unknown. 6 The two brothers who stayed behind, wondering about their delay and desiring to know if their brothers were still alive, sent an interpreter around the time of last Michaelmas, but the Mordvins killed him too. 7 My companions and I, seeing the land occupied by the Tartars and noticing the region being fortified [in a state of war preparations] and that no harvest could be harvested [missionary work], returned to Hungary. 8 And granted we had to pass through many armies and bands of robbers,[45] nevertheless through the prayers and merits of the Holy Church, we reached our brothers and cloister, safe and sound.

5, 1 Sed hec non pretermittam. Iterum cum ego remansi in curia Romana, precesserunt me ad magnam Ungariam quator fratres mei, qui pertransientes per terram Sudal, in finibus regni illius occurrerunt quibusdam Ungaris paganis fugientibus a facie Tartarorum, qui libenter fidem catholicam recepissent, [et] dum versus Ungariam christianam venissent. 2 [Quod] audiens dux predictus de Sudal indignatus fratribus predictis revocatis inhibuit, ne legem Romanam predicarent Ungaris memoratis, et propter hoc expulit fratres predictos de terra sua; 3 tamen absque molestia hi nolentes redire et viam factam facile dimittere declinaverunt ad civitatem Risennie, si viam haberent ut in magnam Ungariam vel ad Morducanos vel ad ipsos Tartaros pertransirent. 4 Duobus autem fratribus ibi relictis ex ipsis, conducti interpretibus in festo Apostolorum Petri et Pauli proximo transacto venerunt ad ducem Morducanorum alterum, qui eodem die egressus quo isti venerant, cum toto populo et familia, sicut superius diximus, Tartaris se subiecit. 5 De cetero, quid de duobus fratribus illis factum sit, utrum mortui sint vel a duce iam dicto ad Tartaros deducti, penitus ignoratur. 6 Duo fratres relicti, admirantes de mora eorundem circa festum Michaelis proximo celebratum miserunt quendam interpretem, de eorum vita cupientes certificari; quem etiam Morducani invadentes occiderunt. 7 Ego autem et socii mei videntes terram a Tartaris occupatam, et regiones munitas conspicientes, at iam nullum fructum fructificandi reversi sumus ad Ungariam. 8 Et licet per multos exercitus et latrones transivimus, sancte tamen ecclesie orationibus et meritis suffragantibus, pervenimus ad fratres nostros et claustrum incolumes et immunes.

9 Since otherwise such a scourge of God arrives and approaches the sons of the Church, the bride of Christ, the discretion of Your Holiness should, with care, consider what is to be over this and what ought to be done.

9 Ceterum cum tale Dei flagellum adveniat et adproximet ad filios Ecclesie sponse Christi, quid super his agendum quidque faciendum sit, Vestre Sanctitatis discretio dignetur sollicite providere.

6, 1 Moreover, so that nothing from this report should remain unsaid, I mention to you, father, that a certain cleric of the Rus’ wrote to us something about the history of the Book of Judges. 2 He was saying that the Tartars are Midianites who, when they were fighting together with Cetthim against the Children of Israel, were defeated by Gideon, as is told in the Book of Judges.[46] 3 Fleeing from there, the said Midianites settled by a river named Tartar, for which reason they also are called Tartars.

6, 1 Preterea ut nichil ex his maneat pretermissum paternitati vestre significo, quod cum quidam clericus Ruthenorum nobis aliqua rescriberet de historia libri Iudicum, dicebat, 2 quod Tartari sunt Madyanite, qui cum Cethym pariter contra filios Israel pugnantes devicti sunt a Gedeone sicut in libro Iudicum continetur. 3 Unde fugientes dicti Madyanite habitaverunt iuxta fluvium quendam nomine Tartar, unde et Tartari sunt vocati.

4 And the Tartars assert that they have such a multitude of warriors that it could be divided into forty parts and no power on earth could be found that could resist one part of them. 5 Furthermore, it is said that they have in their army with them 260,000 slaves who are not of his law,[47] and 135,000 troops, most tested in battle, who are of his law. 6 Moreover, it is said that their women are just as warlike as they are; they shoot arrows and ride horses and draft animals like the men – and are more courageous than the men in war. 7 For when the men sometimes turn their backs in flight, these women never take off in flight, but expose themselves to every risk.[48]

4 Tantam quoque asserunt Tartari se bellatorum habere multitudinem quod in quadraginta partes dividi posset ita quod nulla potestas inveniatur super terram, que uni parti eorum valeat resistere. 5 Item dicitur quod habent in exercitu suo secum servos ducenta sexaginta milia qui non sunt de lege sua et centum triginta quinque milia de lege sua probatissimorum in acie. 6 Item dicitur quod mulieres eorum sicut et ipsi bellicose sunt, et iaciunt sagittas et insident equis et iumentis sicut et viri, et animosiores sunt viris in conflictu belli. 7 Quia viris aliquando terga vertentibus ille nullatenus fugam arripiunt, sed omni discrimini se exponunt.

The letter on the life, sect, and origin of the Tartars is finished.

Explicit epistola de vita, secta et origine Tartarorum.

Footnotes
[1]

Henry R. Luard (ed.), Chronica Majora, vol. 4 (London: Trübner & Co., 1877), 76-77.

[2]

Joseph Hormayr, Die goldene Chronik von Hohenschwangau, Urkunde (Munich: G. Franz, 1842), 67-69.

[3]

János Bak and László Veszprémy (trans.), The Illuminated Chronicle: Chronicle of the Deeds of the Hungarians from the Fourteenth Century Illuminated Codex (Budapest: CEU Press, 2018), 268-269. Based on the suggested terminology, it could be translated: “After this, the king invaded Russia and a duchess of the Rus’ named Lanca came to meet the king…” Papal envoy, John of Plano Carpini, used the same terminology calling the country Ruscia and the peoples Rutheni or Ruteni interchangeably. See: Anastasius van den Wyngaert (ed.), Sinica Franciscana. vol. 1 (Quaracchi-Florence: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1929), 85.

[4]

Luard, Chronica Majora, vol. 4, 387-389.

[5]

Stephen Pow, “The Last Campaign and Death of Jebe Noyan,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 27.1 (2017): 14. The identification of Tsigirkan and Teshukan as Chinggis Khan and Jochi Khan is bolstered by Peter, a Russian bishop, whose oral testimony at the Council of Lyon led to a rendering of the name of Chinggis Khan’s firstborn son as “Thesyrkan.” See: Luard, Chronica Majora, vol. 4, 387. See also the Burton Annals which separately record the testimony of Peter, the Russian bishop– Luard, Annales monastici, vol.1, 272-273, 275. Here Jochi is recorded as Thessirican and Tessirican and his father, Chinggis Khan, is recorded as Clyircam, Chyrcan. The form Chyrcan is indisputably Chinggis Khan, as the name is cited in a very well-known Mongolian chancellery formula recorded in many languages across the whole of Eurasia in the thirteenth century. The reason for the strange form of recording Chinggis Khan and Jochi in Latin sources, and even earlier in Russian sources, is that Turkic peoples tended to pronounce these names in a Turkic rather than Mongol form, viz., Jochi as “Tushi.” Information about the Mongols and even from the Mongols themselves would have reached Russians through Turkic-speaking intermediaries like bilingual Cumans. See: Pow, “The Last Campaign and Death,” 15, n. 90. This convention of using the Cuman-Qipchaq pronunciation adopted by the Rus’ also shows up in Carpini and C. de Bridra’s (C. de Bridia) reports in which Jochi is referred to as “Tusoccan” or “Tussoc” (i.e., “Tushi Khan” or “Tushi”). See: Van den Wygaert, Sinica Franciscana, 65-66; Christopher Dawson, The Mongol Mission (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955), 26; George Painter, “The Tartar Relation,” in The Vinland Map and the Tartar Relation, R. Skelton et al. eds. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 63, 73. Dörrie misidentified the referenced individuals perhaps because of confusion regarding the Turkic renderings of names that are better known in their Mongolian forms; this issue has been clarified only relatively recently.

[6]

Ögedei Khan, Chinggis Khan’s successor and third youngest son, was often referred to simply by the honorific title of Qa’an (Khagan) – that is, “khan of khans.

[7]

Luard, Chronica Majora, vol. 4, 387.

[8]

J. A. Boyle, The Successors of Genghis Khan (New York: Columbia, 1971), 61.

[9]

Peter Jackson, “The Testimony of the Russian 'Archbishop' Peter Concerning the Mongols (1244/5): Precious Intelligence or Timely Disinformation?” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 26:1/2 (2016): 70, n. 29.

[10]

Van den Wyngaert, Sinica Franciscana, 70-71, 137-138; Dawson, The Mongol Mission, 28-29, 80.

[11]

For theories that the Ornas of Latin sources refers to Tana or Otrar, see: Donald Ostrowski, “City Names of the Western Steppe at the Time of the Mongol Invasion,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 61:3 (1998): 465-475; László Bendefy, “Fontes authentici itinera (1235-1238) Fr. Iuliani illustrantes,” Archivum Europae Centro-Orientalis 3 (1937): 35-36. For a recent argument that Ornas refers unequivocally to Urgench, see: Stephen Pow, “A Proposal for the Identity of the Inner Asian City of Ornas (Hornach) Mentioned in Thirteenth-Century Latin Sources,” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 77 (2024) (forthcoming).

[12]

The ambiguous term “secundum” in this passage has been interpreted in various ways. Bendefy interpreted it to mean that Julian agreed to go to Magna Hungary a second time (Bendefy 1943, 276). This interpretation was key to Sinor’s arguments for how many journeys the Dominicans made; he argued two rather than the convention understanding of four. However, “secundum” has alternatively been understood not to refer to a second journey, but rather to Julian’s going “in accordance” to a command from the Papal Curia. Based on prevailing usages in ecclesiastical Latin in texts on related topics from the period (e.g. Simon of Saint-Quentin), we feel that the latter interpretation is more probable.

[13]

In the Latin text of P (Vaticanus Palatinus Lat. 443), we have Brussie (Szovák and Veszprémy, 716), and other manuscripts have “Bruscie” (H) and “prycye” (V). Dörrie and Hautala, following Bendefy, supply “Ruscie,” interpreting the text as a copyist’s error which seems the most probable explanation based on the context. However, it is possible that “Brussie” is not a scribal error and was originally intended by Julian, in which case the second, return, trip to Magna Hungaria from Central Europe was made via the Baltic region, and the place in question here is Prussia (Prussie in the ablative case as we see in Peter of Dusberg’s work in Scriptores rerum Prussicarum, pp. 21-25). Medieval Latin could refer to Prussians as Prusi or Borussi, etc. Still, it seems more likely based on the content of the entire letter that Ruscia is meant as the Dominicans received much information in Eastern Russia (Suzdal) about what had happened to the regions east of the Volga that had fallen to the Mongols. Thus, we have chosen to follow Dörrie and Hautala’s example here (Dörrie 1956, 166; Hautala 2015, 374). All the same, the preceding letter’s mention of Julian’s return from Magna Hungaria via “Poland” gives pause for thought as it demonstrates that the land-route by which he proceeded by was northerly, through Poland which is close to Prussian territories, rather than directly from Kiev southwestward to Hungary, possibly following well-established northern trade routes. Carpini also returned from Mongolia via Poland and then went southward to Hungary. Could it be that the Kiev-Transylvania passage was too risky in the period owing to the disruption and presence of the Mongols?

[14]

In one manuscript of the text, P (Vaticanus Palatinus Lat. 443), which was employed by modern editors (Szovák and Veszprémy 1999, 716), it has “Thatari” here which cannot make sense in the context and must be a copyist’s error. Faced with this conundrum, Dörrie substituted “Bascardi” into the text as various manuscripts make it clear that “pagan Hungarians.” Following Hautala’s pointer that we should not repeat Dörrie’s error, we have opted here not to use “Bascardi” and to simply leave the evident scribal error in place (Dörrie 1956, 166; Hautala 2015, 374). Nonetheless, it is true that the pagan Hungarians were frequently described as Baskirs/Baskirds, particularly in Islamic geographical works. Carpini notes that Baskirds were the same as Magna Hungaria: “Bascart, id est magna Hungaria” (Van den Wyngaert 1929, 89). The Baskird name was still attached to the Kingdom of Hungary by a Persian thirteenth-century Persian author, Juvaini, describing the Mongol invasion of Europe (Boyle 1958, 270-271).

[15]

If there is any basis to “Gothia” appearing here, it could be that Crimea was a bastion of the Cuman populace.

[16]

The important active social roles of Mongol women in both political and military affairs in the thirteenth century are well known in the literature. Contemporary authors from widely separated sedentary societies often expressed surprise or even dismay at this. See, for instance, Ibn al-Athir’s lament about a female warrior in the Mongol army who had taken several Persians prisoner. See: D. S. Richards, Ibn al-Athir, The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir for the Crusading Period from al-Kamil fi’l-ta’rikh. Part 3: The Years 589-629/1193-1231: The Ayyubids after Saladin and the Mongol Menace (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), 216-217.

[17]

The very early 1241 Innsbruck manuscript has Witoph rather than Euthet.

[18]

The history of the Cumans/Qipchaqs as a group or confederation is complex and subject to debate. These peoples were known by different names to authors from different societies, but broadly it can be said that Cumans were the powerful groups of nomadic tribes in the steppes stretching from the Black Sea easterward past the Caspian Sea – the Dasht-i-Qipchaq (Golden 1992, pp. 270-282). The abundance of the region and a degree of land cultivation in the Kipchak homeland preceding the Mongol conquest is suggested by al-Umari. See: Klaus Lech (trans.). Das mongolische Weltreich, Al-'Umari's Darstellung der mongolischen Reiche (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1968), 139.

[19]

Gureg is “Vrech” or “Urech” in the 1241 Innsbruck manuscript. A Qipchaq ruler named Yuri (the Russian form of George) is recorded to have offered Jebe and Subutai strong resistance when they tried to move northward into Qipchaq territory from the Caucasus in 1222. The Qipchaq were defeated at the “Buzu River” (不租河) which is likely the Buchs River mentioned by Friar Julian. Several biographies in the Yuan Shi record aspects of this battle. See: Pow and Liao, “Subutai,” 57. Also, one of the Qipchaq chieftains recorded in the Mongol-Chinese source material, Tataqar(a) was mentioned in a dry Mongol report of the later campaign against the Kipchak in 1237-39. Thus, Julian is likely providing important and at least partly accurate information about Qipchaq political divisions at the time of the Jebe and Subutai’s arrival in the area in the early 1220s.

[20]

Julian is not the only author to suggest internecine conflicts between the Cumans played a role in the victory of the Mongols who were able to exploit these divisions. The Egyptian historian Al-Nuwayrī (1279-1333) likewise suggested that the Mongol victory over the Cumans (Qipchaqs) during the rule of Jochi (d. 1227) in the northwest region was aided by a feud between two of the Cuman tribes (Hautala 2016, p. 194, n. 25).

[21]

We see here another testimony Chinggis Khan’s mandate for world conquest being outlined by Julian, a decade before the separate embassies of Carpini and Ascelin confirmed the Mongols’ mandate. Julian’s narrative contains nuance since his narrative of Chinggis Khan’s rise suggests the gradual evolution of a world conquest program, resulting from the conqueror’s continued successes.

[22]

Based on the context of this sentence, we share both Bendefy’s approach and that of Göckenjan and Sweeney in their own translation that these were lists of tribes and kingdoms the Mongol invaders had recently conquered (Bendefy 1943, p. 307; Göckenjan – Sweeney 1985, p. 104). Saqsin was a major city in the Volga delta near modern Astrakhan. Carpini mentioned it was still heroically holding out against years of Mongol onslaughts when he passed by in the mid-1240s. It is thought that Batu may have established his own capital, Sarai, on or near its ruins after it fell. The Mari were and are a Finno-Ugric tribe, based in the Volga region and closely related to the Mordvins. The Mordvins, mentioned here and in the previous report of Riccardus, were also based in the Volga region.

[23]

Wedin could be “the land of Veda” mentioned by Friar Riccardus. Göckenjan and Sweeney connect “Vedin” with the Burtas (буртасъ) tribe who lived north of the Caspian as steppe nomads and according to those authors embraced Islam much earlier than neighbors to the north (Göckenjan – Sweeney 1985, p. 155, n.21). That notion of Muslim conversion does not seem to be supported by Ibn Rusta, for instance, and the eleventh-century author Gardizi who describe them following a pagan religion like the Oghuz (Göckenjan – Zimonyi 2001, 169). This could be correct as Vidin seems tied to the geographical/tribal term Budini which survived in the region from antiquity through the Early Modern era and that seems possibly connected with Burta. Yet, this identification of Vedin with Burtas might be inaccurate. For one thing, the Vidin are already mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus as a distinct people, which has a powerful resemblance to Vedin. Secondly, Burta might be related to Mordvin, Mari, etc. as we see in Rashid al-Din’s description of the campaign, terms which could be etymologically tied to an Indo-Iranian word for “person.” In that case, the Mordvins and Mari are mentioned in this list already meaning the Vedin cannot be the Burta. Secondly, the term Wedin/Vedin could be tied to the Votiaks dwelling nearby the Mordvins and Chuvash people. A source, written centuries later but before the drastic modern changes of modern centuries, about the people of the region notes that the magicians among the Votiaks were called “Vedin” “Vedoun.” It seems that the Vedin might be identified or at least connected with the Votiaks. See: Johann Gottlieb Georgi, Russia: Or, A Compleat Historical Account of All the Nations which compose that empire, vol. 1 (London, 1780), 139. See also Maria Magdolna Tartar, Ethnic Continuity by the Volga: from Vidini to Vet’ke.

[24]

It is uncertain which tribe or land was intended here and the Poydowia is not found in other sources (Göckenjan – Sweeney 1985, 155, n. 22; Bendefy 1943, 306). It is reminiscent of the tribe called Polyanians mentioned in the Primary Chronicle (The Russian Primary Chronicle, 57). Remotely, we would like to put forward the suggestion that it might be tied to Polovci/Polovtsi which was an East-Slavic term for the Qipchaq/Cumans (Golden 1992, p. 271-272). Perhaps Julian heard an ethnonym from his Russian informants whom he details in his epistle and envisioned it as a separate and distinct tribe without realizing that Polovci was simply a Russian exonym for the Cuman people whose conquest he had already detailed. After all, the other conquered peoples in the list are notable and attested in writings, so it is strange that this evidently important people should be so unattested and mysterious.

[25]

In Manuscript P, Orgenhusin is “Ovcheruch.” That is very likely Voronezh. Archaeology confirms that it was a surprisingly large and complex settlement, if still an outpost of Rus’ principalities, in the period long before the Mongol arrival.

[26]

An argument against traditionally skeptical views toward Friar’s Julian’s report is his prescience regarding the imminent attack on Kievan Rus’ which erupted in late 1237 and led its rather abrupt ruin and gradual subjugation.

[27]

Though Hornach must mean Urgench when used typically by Latin authors of this time, Karakorum was intended or confused with Urgench in this case. Urgench, an important Khwarazmian oasis city near the Aral Sea was likely being falsely equated with the Mongols’ newly established capital city by Russians who had some awareness of Urgench on their frontiers but would have still known very little of the new city in Mongolia. As well, one can imagine that the name of Kharakorum might have sounded enough like Hornach, a better known city to outsiders and traders, and this is how the confusion reached Friar Julian. Ögödei was building a palace in Karakorum during this period. His building activity and attempts to start farming in the environs is well documented by Rashid al-Din. See: J. A. Boyle, The Successors of Genghis Khan (New York: Columbia, 1971), 61.

[28]

We differ with the interpretation of Göckenjan and Sweeney here.

[29]

The expression inquam – “indeed” – is used to convey emphasis regarding the extraordinary wealth of the khan which would have been surprising or even hard to believe to his readers.

[30]

There have been multiple interpretations of the meaning here. In our view, the “covering” here refers to sumptuous fabric over the couch or throne of the khan rather than to a roof over it. He perhaps felt readers would think the account was giving way to false rumors or exaggeration and was concerned the real danger facing Hungary and Europe at large would be disregarded – as indeed it was to a certain degree until the invasion of 1241.

[31]

This refers to the keshik bodyguards around the khan’s tent. The levels of security and huge numbers of bodyguards around the khan’s person and tent were described in detail by Carpini. See: Dawson, The Mongol Mission, 61-62.

[32]

Carpini and Rubruck noted this same rule regarding stepping on the threshold and it must be considered remarkable that Julian somehow was already aware of this peculiarity of Mongol culture. Ibid., 63, 118.

[33]

As Dörrie pointed out, from the Latin perspective this would describe the Mongol advance against the larger region of the Holy Land. After 1240, the Mongols were indeed simultaneous in carrying out their drive against Europe, advancing against the Seljuk Turks, and demanding the surrender of other territories in the Near East like Antioch. News of these events had been reaching the Papal Curia for several years in the aftermath.

[34]

A reminder that the westward drive (1235-1242) had a wider net than simply Europe and was happening south of Caucasus too and pushed even into Syria and contacted crusader states in 1244. See: Peter Jackson, The Mongols and the West (Harlow: Pearson, 2005), 74.

[35]

The decimal organization of the Mongol army was widely known and admired by contemporary writers.

[36]

Kirakos of Gandzak describes this divide-and-conquer method of preventing betrayal among various nationalities being employed by the Mongol commander Baiju at the Battle of Köse Dagh in 1243. See: Robert Bedrosian (trans.), Kirakos Gandzakets’i. History of the Armenians (New York: Sources of the Armenian Tradition, 1986), 244.

[37]

We read about this practice in the Rus’ chronicles as well. The Galician-Volhynian Chronicle notes that in 1241, the Mongols, who had subsequently invaded Hungary, left behind the Bolokhovians – a people thought to live along the Bug River – to plant wheat and millet for them. The Galicians attacked them vigorously, in part because of the hatred Danilo felt toward them for having chosen to show allegiance to the invading Mongols. See: George A. Perfecky (trans.), “Galician-Volynian Chronicle,” in The Hypatian Codex, Part II: The Galician-Volynian Chronicle, Harvard Series in Ukrainian Studies 16:2 (Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1973), 51.

[38]

There is a well-attested steppe tradition that a defeated and conquered people would take on the name of their conquerors and it might well explain why we have Crimean and Volga “Tatar” populations still today – Tatar is not attested as a name for them before the Mongol conquest as historians in Kazan readily concede. It is indeed strange that the name conquered people were forced to adopt should be “Tartar” which we are told in numerous other sources was also the name of a people previously conquered (and wiped out) by the “Mongols.” See: Stephen Pow, “Nationes que se Tartaros appellant: An Exploration of the Historical Problem of the Usage of the Ethnonyms Tatar and Mongol in Medieval Sources.” Golden Horde Review 7:3 (2019): 548.

[39]

See Master Rogerius’s vivid description of these siege tactics against villages in the Great Plain: Bak and Rady, Master Roger’s Epistle, 210-213.

[40]

The rather generic term, castrum/castra, used here could also imply a castle or a simpler fortress. Sources in China and the Middle East testify to the Mongols using an identical tactic. For China, see: Olbricht and Pinks, Meng-ta pei-lu, 53. For the Middle East, see: Richards, The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir, 216.

[41]

Alberic of Trois-Fontaines reported that the mission of four Dominicans – evidently the mission of Julian detailed in this epistle – was undertaken to determine whether the rumour of a Mongol plan to invaded Hungary was accurate. See: Hautala 2015, 398.

[42]

This would mean the territory lying to the west of Rome, i.e., Western Europe. John of Plano Carpini heard directly from Güyük Khan that the Mongols intended to conquer Italy. See: Joseph L. Baird, Giuseppe Baglivi, John Robert Kane (trans.), The Chronicle of Salimbene de Adam (Binghampton: Medieval & Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1986), 200, 203.

[43]

It is often imagined that this letter came from Batu and that he is directly addressing the king of Hungary. However, judging by the language which follows the formula of other messages that come directly from a supreme khan, we would like to point out that at least in principle this letter was an expression of Ögödei Khan’s own voice and command rather than Batu. It has boilerplate statements that seem to originate from the Mongol court. Besides Güyük Khan’s letter which exists in the Vatican, consider, for comparison, Ögedei Khan’s ultimatums to Korea. Gari Ledyard, “Two Mongol Documents from the Koryŏ sa,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 83 (1963): 228. Regarding the Middle East, consider an ultimatum, again from Ögedei, delivered to the ruler of Mayyafariqin: “The representative of the Lord of heaven, who strides the surface of the Earth, king of the Orient and Occident, who commands the princes of all countries to enter into obedience to the khan of khans, Ögedei” warned the emir henceforth to be his obedient subject and dismantle the walls of all his strongholds. Arlette Nègre (trans.), Kitāb duwal al-Islām (Les dynasties de l'Islam) (Damascus: Institut Français de Damas, 1979), 242.

[44]

There has been debate about the casus belli and the nature of submission being requested – whether conflict could have been averted by the Hungarian king promptly turning over the Cuman refugees. The divide-and-conquer tactics testified throughout Mongol history and the account of Mongol ultimatums described by the Hungarian king’s chancellor to Emperor Frederick II suggest this letter was an ultimatum demanding the submission of the king to Mongol rule. As an added detail, the Innsbruck manuscript of Julian’s epistle contains a subtle insult to the Hungarian king – he is called “regulus” meaning a petty king. Probably, the Mongols wanted to force a confrontation and handing over the Cuman refugees would not have stopped the outbreak of war.

[45]

This statement, along with several throughout the entire letter which refer to conversations with refugees fleeing westward from the Mongols, hints at a breakdown of law, order, and society that regularly coincided with Mongol invasions. If one wants a powerful illustration of this phenomenon, read the “Prophecy in the dialogue of Aristotle and Alexander” (4.1.l) found in the forthcoming CEMT volume on the Mongol invasion of Europe.

[46]

There were initial attempts to find the Mongols in the Bible. This view among Russian clerics was widespread for a time, judging by the fact that a Bishop Peter of Russia made the same claim at the Council of Lyon in 1244. The reference to Cetthim, a grandson of Japeth, draws a connection to the nomadic Amalekites. For a detailed study on these lines of thinking, see: A. V. Maiorov, “The Dragon Turns its Gaze to the West: The Mongol Empire’s Global Diplomacy in the Mirror of English, Russian, and Persian Chronicles,” English Historical Review. 2022. Vol. 137

[47]

The confusing switch to phrasing like “his army” is the result of this postscript being an insertion of a separate text pertaining to “King David” which is found only in the “V” manuscript of Friar Julian – a Vatican Apostolic Library codex. The passage originates from a third version of the letter, “Deeds of King David” (1221), which was connected to rumours of the Chinggis Khan’s Eurasian conquests heard in the Crusader camp during the Fifth Crusade. Many thanks to Roman Hautala for drawing attention to this crucial aspect of the text.

[48]

Ibn al-Athir noted a remarkable story of a female Mongol warrior taking many prisoners. Simon of Saint-Quentin noted Mongol women rode horses, shot arrows, and performed work on horseback as ably as the men (XXX, 85).

References
  1. Allsen, Thomas T. “Prelude to the Western Campaigns: Mongol Military Operations in the Volga– Ural Region, 1217–1237.” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 3 (1983): 5–24.
  2. Baird, Joseph L., Giuseppe Baglivi, and John Robert Kane (trans.). The Chronicle of Salimbene de Adam. Binghampton: Medieval & Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1986.
  3. Bak, János, Martyn Rady, and László Veszprémy. Anonymus and Master Roger: The Deeds of the Hungarians & Epistle to the Sorrowful Lament upon the Destruction of the Kingdom of Hungary by the Tatars. Budapest: CEU Press, 2010.
  4. Bak, János and László Veszprémy. The Illuminated Chronicle: Chronicle of the Deeds of the Hungarians from the Fourteenth Century Illuminated Codex. Budapest: CEU Press, 2018.
  5. Bedrosian, Robert. Kirakos Gandzakets’i. History of the Armenians. New York: Sources of the Armenian Tradition, 1986.
  6. Bendefy, László. Az ismeretlen Juliánusz: A legelső magyar ázsiakutató életrajza és kritikai méltatása. Budapest: Stephaneum, 1936.
  7. Bendefy, László. “Fr. Julianus utazásának kéziratos kútfői = Fontes authentici itinera Fr. Iuliani illustrantes.” Archivum Europae Centro-Orientalis 3, pp. 1-52. Budapest: Főbizományos Stemmer Ödön Könyvkereskedés és Antiquarium, 1937.
  8. Bendefy, László. Kéziratos kútfők Fr. Julianus utazásáról: Richardus beszámolója és Julianus levelei. Budapest, Szalay nyomda (A magyar őstörténet kútfői II), 1943.
  9. Bendefy, László. Magna Hungaria és a Liber Censuum. Budapest: Szalay Sándor, 1943.
  10. Benisch, A. Travels of Rabbi Petachia of Ratisbon. London: Trubner & Co., 1856.
  11. Boyle, J.A. Genghis Khan: The History of the World Conqueror by ‘Ala-ad-din ‘Ata-Malik Juvaini. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1958.
  12. Boyle, J.A. The Successors of Genghis Khan. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971.
  13. Cross, Samuel Hazzard and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor. The Russian Primary Chronicle: Laurentian Text. Cambridge: Medieval Academy of America, 1953.
  14. Dawson, Christopher (ed.). The Mongol Mission: Narratives and Letters of the Franciscan Missionaries in Mongolia and China in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955.
  15. Diens, Mary. “Eastern Missions of the Hungarian Dominicans in the First Half of the Thirteenth Century.” Isis 27 (1937): 225-241.
  16. Dörrie, Heinrich (ed.). Drei Texte zur Geschichte der Ungarn und Mongolen: Die Missionsreisen des fr. Julianus O.P. ins Uralgebiet (1234/5) und nach Russland (1237): und der Bericht des Erzbischofs Peter über die Tartaren. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956.
  17. Georgi, Johann Gottlieb. Russia: Or, A Compleat Historical Account of All the Nations which compose that empire. Vol. 1. London, 1780.
  18. Göckenjan, Hansgerd and István Zimonyi. Orientalische Berichte über die Völker Osteuropas und Zentralasiens im Mittelalter. Die Ǧayhānī-Tradition (Ibn Rusta, Gardīzī, Hudūd al-cĀlam, al-Bakrī und al-Marvazī). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2001.
  19. Göckenjan, Hansgerd and James Ross Sweeney. Der Mongolensturm: Berichte von Augenzeugen und Zeitgenossen, 1235–1250. Graz: Verlag Styria, 1985.
  20. Golden, Peter. An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992.
  21. Györffy, György. Julianus barát és a napkelet fölfedezése. Válogatta, a bevezető tanulmányt és a jegyzeteket írta Györffy György. Fordította Györffy György és Gy. Ruitz Izabella [Friar Julian and the discovery of the East. Selection, introductory study and notes by György Györffy. Translated by György Györffy and Izabella Gy. Ruitz]. Budapest, Szépirodalmi Könyvkiadó, 1986.
  22. Hautala, Roman. От Давида, царя Индий до ненавистного плебса Сатаны. Антология ранних латинских сведений о татаро-монголах [From “David, King of the Indies” to “Detestable Plebs of Satan”: An Anthology of Early Latin Information about the Tatar-Mongols]. Kazan: Sh.Marjani Institute of History of Tatarstan Academy of Sciences, 2015.
  23. Hautala, Roman. “Early Hungarian Information on the Beginning of the Western Campaign of Batu (1235-1242).” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hung. 69:2 (2016): 183–199.
  24. Hormayr, Joseph. Die goldene Chronik von Hohenschwangau. Munich: G. Franz, 1842.
  25. Jackson, Peter. The Mongols and the West. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2005.
  26. Jackson, Peter. “The Testimony of the Russian ‘Archbishop’ Peter Concerning the Mongols (1244/5): Precious Intelligence or Timely Disinformation?” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 26:1/2 (2016): 65-77.
  27. Latham-Sprinkle, John. (2022). “The Alan capital *Magas: A preliminary identification of its location.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 85(1), 1-20. doi:10.1017/S0041977X22000453
  28. Lech, Klaus (trans.). Das mongolische Weltreich, Al-'Umari's Darstellung der mongolischen Reiche. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1968.
  29. Ledyard, Gari. “Two Mongol Documents from the Koryŏ sa.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 83 (1963): 225-239.
  30. Luard, Henry Richards (ed.). Annales monastici, vol 1. London: Longman Publishing, 1864.
  31. Luard, Henry Richards (ed.). Matthaei Parisiensis, monachi Sancti Albani, Chronica majora. 7 vols. London: Longman Publishing, 1872-1883, vol. 4, 1877.
  32. Maiorov, A. V. “The Dragon Turns its Gaze to the West: The Mongol Empire’s Global Diplomacy in the Mirror of English, Russian, and Persian Chronicles.” English Historical Review. Vol. 137 (2022).
  33. MGHS. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores. Pertz, G. H. et al. (ed.). Hannover: Hahn, 1826-1892.
  34. Moravcsik, Gyula and R.J.H. Jenkins. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Adminstrando Imperio. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1967.
  35. Nagy, Balázs. Tatárjárás: Nemzet és emlékezet [Mongol Invasion: Nation and Memory]. Budapest: Osiris, 2003.
  36. Nègre, Arlette (trans.), Kitāb duwal al-Islām (Les dynasties de l'Islam). Damascus: Institut Français de Damas, 1979.
  37. Olbricht, Peter and Elisabeth Pinks. Meng-ta pei-lu und Hei-ta shih-lüeh: Chinesische Gesandtenberichte über die Frühen Mongolen 1221 und 1237. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1980.
  38. Ostrowski, Donald. “City Names of the Western Steppe at the Time of the Mongol Invasion,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 61:3 (1998): 465-475.
  39. Painter, George (trans.). “The Tartar Relation.” In: The Vinland Map and the Tartar Relation. R.A. Skelton et al. (eds.). New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.
  40. Perfecky, George A. (trans.). “Galician-Volynian Chronicle,” in The Hypatian Codex, Part II: The Galician-Volynian Chronicle, Harvard Series in Ukrainian Studies 16:2. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1973.
  41. Pow, Stephen. “A Proposal for the Identity of the Inner Asian City of Ornas (Hornach) Mentioned in Thirteenth-Century Latin Sources,” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 77 (2024): [forthcoming].
  42. Pow, Stephen. “Nationes que se Tartaros appellant: An Exploration of the Historical Problem of the Usage of the Ethnonyms Tatar and Mongol in Medieval Sources.” Golden Horde Review 7:3 (2019): 545-567.
  43. Pow, Stephen. “The Last Campaign and Death of Jebe Noyan.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 27:1 (2017): 31-51.
  44. Pow, Stephen and Jingjing Liao. “Subutai: Sorting Fact from Fiction Surrounding the Mongol Empire’s Greatest General (With Translations of Subutai’s Two Biographies in the Yuan Shi).” Journal of Chinese Military History 7:1 (2018): 37-76.
  45. Rady, Martyn and László Veszprémy (trans.). The Deeds of the Hungarians. Budapest: CEU Press, 2010.
  46. Richard, Jean. Simon of Saint-Quentin: Histoire des Tartares. Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1965.
  47. Richards, D.S. (trans.). The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir for the Crusading Period from al-Kamil fi’l-ta’rikh. Part 3: The Years 589-629/1193-1231: The Ayyubids after Saladin and the Mongol Menace. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008.
  48. Rimanyi, Aron. “Closing the Steppe Highway: A new perspective on the travels of Friar Julian of Hungary.” In Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU, Vol. 24, pp. 99-112. Eds. Gerhard Jaritz, Kyra Lyublyanovics, Judith Rasson, Zsuzsa Reed. Budapest: CEU Press, 2018.
  49. Sinor, Denis. Inner Asia and Its Contacts with Medieval Europe. London: Variorum Reprints, 1977.
  50. Sinor, Denis. “Le rapport du Dominicain Julien écrit en 1238 sur le péril mongol.” Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres (Paris: Académie des inscriptions & belles-lettres) 146:4 (2002): 1153–1168.
  51. Sinor, Denis. “Un voyageur du treizième siècle,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 14 (1952): 589–602.
  52. Szovák, Kornél and László Veszprémy (eds.). “Relatio fratris Ricardi. ("De facto Ungarie Magne a fratre Ricardo invento tempore Domini Gregori Pape noni").” In Imré Szentpétery (ed.), Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum requmque stirpis Arpadianae gestarum. 2 vols, pp. 531-542. Budapest: 1937–1938. Reprint. Budapest 1999.
  53. Van den Wyngaert, Anastasius (ed.). Sinica Franciscana. vol. 1. Quaracchi-Florence: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1929.
  54. Varga, Gergely et al. “The archaeogenomic validation of Saint Ladislaus' relic provides insights into the Árpád dynasty's genealogy,” Journal of Genetics and Genomics 50:1 (2023): 58-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jgg.2022.06.008
  55. Yuan Shi. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1976.
  56. Zimonyi, István. “A mongolok nyugati hadjáratai [The western campaigns of the Mongols].” In: Zimonyi, István (ed.), Középkori nomádok – korai magyarok [Mediaeval nomads – early Hungarians], pp. 167–189. Budapest: Balassi Kiadó (Magyar Őstörténeti Könyvtár 27), 2008.
  57. Zimonyi, István. “The Mongol Campaigns against Eastern Europe.” In: Zimonyi, I. – Spinei, V. (eds): Medieval Nomads in Eastern Europe. Collected Studies, pp. 325–352. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române–Muzeul Brăilei Editure Istros (Florilegium magistrorum historiae archaeologiaeque Antiquitatis et Medii Aevi 16), 2014.