Download Introduction - S3 amazonaws com

The Mendicant
Friars and Eastern
Christianity
C.1245 – 1255
1
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 3
Chapter 1: Influencing Factors....................................................................................... 5
The Mongols .............................................................................................................. 5
The Mongols and Religion................................................................................. 5
Eastern Christendom .................................................................................................. 7
The Ecumenical Movement and Some Earlier Doctrinal Differences ............... 9
Further Difficulties........................................................................................... 11
Papal Agenda ........................................................................................................... 14
The Mongol Threat and Papal Reaction .......................................................... 14
The Friars ................................................................................................................. 18
Ecclesiastical Reform and the Development of the New Orders ..................... 18
Chapter 2: The Early Missions .................................................................................... 25
Chapter 3: The Mission of Friar William of Rubruck ................................................. 36
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 46
Appendices ...................................................................................................................... i
The Mission of John of Plano Carpini and Benedict the Pole .................................... i
The Mission of William of Rubruck ......................................................................... iv
A Map of the Mongol Empire at the time of William of Rubruck’s visit. .............viii
Bibliography ................................................................................................................. ix
2
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to identify the change in perception of the Mendicant
Friars towards the Eastern Christians, in the ten-year period, c. 1245 – 1255; this is
when the missionary activity of the new religious orders to the East was at its peak.
However, the explanation for this surge in missionary activity can only be appreciated
when the complex political circumstances of thirteenth century ecclesiastical affairs
are understood.
Firstly, Chingiz Khan united the Mongols, assembling a society of warriors, who were
ferocious and expeditious in their attack. The Mongols launched themselves into the
world arena, proclaiming the new world order, with themselves at the head; nations
were staggered by the speed with which they moved; there seemed nothing that could
stop them.
The papacy initially did little about the advancing Mongols, possibly because they
were so far away, but also because he had more immediate problems to manage. The
papacy was at variance with Frederick II, concerned about the disaster at La Forbie in
1244, and the fall of Jerusalem; then there was the question of the eastern schismatic
Christians, who Innocent IV was hoping to unite with the Roman Church.
Furthermore, the legend of Prester John and the confidence that deliverance was
coming from the East meant that the Mongols were viewed, to a lesser extent, as
potential allies, rather than enemies.
With these factors in mind, Innocent dispatched three missions to the East, using the
newly established religious orders.
The parties consisted of either Dominicans,
3
Andrew of Longjumeau and Ascelin1, whose mission was reported by Simon of St.
Quentin, or they consisted of Franciscans, who were lead by John of Plano Carpini;
the friars were chosen for this task because preaching and missionary work was an
essential part of their duties. The initial reports that came back saw the Eastern
Christians in a favourable light, even if the reports on the Mongols were more
alarming. Andrew spent time with a monk, of whom he spoke approvingly2 and
Carpini was to achieve some short-lived success, in his communications with Daniil
and Vasil’ko Romanovich.
In contrast to the earlier missions, where intelligence work was part of the brief,
William of Rubruck was on a mission that was wholly religious in spirit. Rubruck
had the advantage over his predecessors in as much as he had the knowledge already
acquired on the earlier missions and was, therefore more prepared for Mongol
customs. On the other hand, the reports that had previously come back had left the
Eastern Christians in a favourable light; this was something that Rubruck himself
would not necessarily agree with.
1
It is unfortunate that there is no mention of any Christians that Ascelin met along route; except for the
Friar Guichard, who joined them for five months; this is especially regrettable, considering that the
party was in Mongol territory for a year, yet was away on the mission for three years and seven
months. This may be related to the fact that Simon, the author, was only with Ascelin for two years
and six weeks.
2
‘Nor must we pass over the fact that the afore-mentioned monk is of such righteousness and
abstinence that he is indeed on sure grounds regarded as a saint’. Andrew of Longjumeau, Abstract of
Andrew of Longjumeau’s first mission, in: Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, VI (Additamenta),
(RHUL Course File), p.3.
4
Chapter 1: Influencing Factors
The Mongols
The Mongol Empire emerged from the steppe tribes to become the largest empire that
has ever existed, stretching from Korea to Hungary, including (except for India and
the Southeast of the continent) most of Asia and a good deal of Europe. No other
nomadic conqueror managed to hold both the Asian steppe and the neighbouring
lands at the same time.
The Mongols and Religion
The practices of the Mongols originated from their ancestor-worship, a belief in a
single God called Tengerri and shamanism, although it is not feasible to state what
was meant by the term ‘shamanism’ in the thirteenth century. However, they were
now exposed to a variety of religious beliefs through their conquest of different
cultures.
Firstly, there was Islam, which was observed by both the Persian historian
Juwaynī, writing in 12603 and by Rubruck, who noted Berke’s Muslim faith4.
Secondly, a religion previously unseen in the West5, the Mongols had been exposed to
the Buddhism of the Far East. Finally, Christianity, at least Nestorianism, had gained
some high ranking Mongol sympathizers, most notably Güyük; news of his baptism
3
William of Rubruck, The Mission of Friar William of Rubruck, Peter Jackson and David Morgan Eds.
(London, 1990), p.22.
4
Rubruck, The Mission, (XVIII, 2), p.127.
5
P. Jackson, William of Rubruck in the Mongol Empire: Perception and Prejudices, in: Travel Fact and
Travel Fiction: Studies on Fiction, Literary Tradition, Scholarly Discovery and Observation in Writing.
Ed. Martels Z. von, (Leiden, New York, Köln, 1994), p.65.
5
was brought to Louis IX on the Seventh Crusade, by Eljigidei’s embassy. Other than
Güyük, Sartaq, Batu’s son, was also reportedly Christian6. Furthermore, Rubruck was
promised that Güyük’s successor, Möngke, had been baptized, but again he remained
skeptical, as he had not personally witnessed this7. It is hardly surprising, that Marco
Polo noted later, ‘these Tartars do not care what God is worshipped in their lands. If
only they are faithful to the Lord Khan and quite obedient, and give therefore the
appointed tribute, and justice is well kept, thou mayest do what pleaseth thee with the
soul.’8
What is most significant is that representatives from each of the religious groups
found a place at court. The Mongols felt that any of the religions may be the true
one9, and came to the conclusion that the best possible course of action would be to
have the goodwill of all the religious groups, that were present in their society.
Taking this into consideration and the Mongol attitude to their place in the world
hierarchy; namely, the Khan was just below God; the religious classes seemed to have
a favored place in Mongol society; the Khan required that members of each religious
6
The friar expressed reservations about Sartach’s Christianity: ‘Whether Sartach believes in Christ is
not, I do not know. What I know is that he does not want to be called a Christian.’ Rubruck, The
Mission, (XVIII, 1), p126.
7
‘Some Nestorians wanted to assure me…that (the Khan) had been baptised; but I told them that I
would never believe it, or pass it onto anyone else, as I had not seen it.’ Ibid, (XXIX, 16), p.188.
8
Cited in: S.N.C. Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China, (Tübingen,
1992), p.295.
9
‘We Mo’als … believe that there is only one God…just as God has given the hand several fingers, so
he has given mankind several paths. To you God has given the Scriptures…whereas to us he has given
the soothsayers’ Rubruck, The Mission, (XXXIV, 2), p. 236.
6
order, or sect should pray for him, thereby assuring Gods favour towards the Mongol
dynasty.
Eastern Christendom
‘It is an article of faith that the followers of Christ should form one united body on
earth’10, therefore, a definition for the term ‘schism’ could be the emergence of an
independent splinter group within a church, whereas ‘heresy’ is associated with faulty
doctrine. In the case of East versus West, were increasing antagonism was more
obvious from the 840’s, there were doctrinal discrepancies, however, the problem was
exacerbated by the question of authority. Nevertheless, to understand the nature of
the divide between the Catholic Church and that of the Orthodox Church it would be
prudent to take into consideration the influencing factors; this includes how the
Christian world was divided geographically into Latin and Orthodox, the nature of the
doctrinal differences, the social and political differences and the question of authority.
Constantinople was the heart of Orthodox Christianity, the patriarch of which was the
most senior of the four eastern patriarchs; below him in ascending order were
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, this order was formally ratified at the
Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451. Originally, the Eastern Christians, whether
Coptic, Greek, Syrian or Armenian, were united by communion, but the schisms that
occurred in the fifth and sixth centuries led to a rift still noticeable today. Adjacent to
the Greek Orthodox Church developed other eastern churches, these included the
10
S. Runciman, The Eastern Schism, (Oxford, 1955) p.1.
7
Church of the East, otherwise known as Nestorianism, and the five Non-Chalcedonian
churches.
From the ninth through to the eleventh century, there was a rapid spread of
Christianity through Scandinavia, the largely Slavic communities of Central Europe
and through the Balkans. Latin Christianity extended its boarders from Bavaria,
through the Episcopal sees of Salzburg, Aquilia, Carinthia and Croatia11, despite the
latter having links with the Byzantine Empire. However, in the ninth century, the
greatest missionary accomplishment was the conversion to Christianity of Bulgaria
and Moravia12. Nevertheless, it was not until 955, when the Hungarians who had
invaded Slovakia, Pannonia and Transylvania in 895, were defeated, that Moravia and
Hungary were firmly and finally under the influence of the Latin Church.
Likewise, as expansion was underway in the Latin West, so was growth continuing in
the Orthodox East, where the church was firmly established in Greece, Thrace and
Macedonia. The newly converted communities had been predominantly pagan Slavs
until they came under Byzantine and, therefore Orthodox Christian control. However,
the most significant expansion of the Orthodox Church came with the conversion of
the Russian nation, the epicentre of which was Kiev. Slavonic in tradition there were
other influencing factors as the principalities were ruled by Swedish Vikings, called
Rus and Varangi. In the ninth centuries they had control of the river system that ran
11
W. Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 4th Edition, (Edinburgh, 1986), p.262
12
Bulgaria was converted through the essentially compulsory baptism of the Tsar, Boris after a
Byzantine invasion and Moravia was converted through the machinations of the Frankish Kingdom of
Louis the German.
8
from the Balkans to the Black Sea, because of this there was regular contact with the
Byzantines through trading. These ties were finalised in the reign of Vladimir I (980
– 1015) as he took the initiative in establishing both churches and monasteries.
The Ecumenical Movement and Some Earlier Doctrinal Differences
The principal challenge faced by the early Christian Church was sustaining the
monotheism acquired from Judaism; in other words, how can God be the Father, the
Son and the Holy Ghost? What was the relation of Christ to God the Father and to the
Holy Ghost? Consequently, for the first time in history, representatives from the
different Churches in Christendom, Western, Byzantine, African and Eastern,
assembled to resolve all of the doctrinal differences. They met in Nicaea in 325; the
decisions made there have given Christianity a creed that is still relevant today.
The first Ecumenical Council renounced the teachings of Arius of Alexandria, the key
expounder of ‘subordinationism’13. This meant that whilst Arius maintained the son
was subordinate to God, as he was born of God he was ‘secondary’, but nonetheless,
still divine, the Nicene Creed maintained that Christ, the Son, belonged with God, in
other words what God was, the son was also. The problem here was that whilst the
Catholic Church had denounced Arius, the Greek East was, at first deeply suspicious
of the creed. It took another fifty-six years before this difference of opinion was
settled at the second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople, in 381.
Far more
damaging to relations between the various churches was the debate surrounding the
nature of Christ.
13
I. Gillman, Christians in Asia before 1550, (Michigan, 1990), p.13
9
The Nicene declaration left open a very logical problem; if Christ is the true God, and
therefore divine, how can he also be human? Then it also follows that if Christ is God
and man at the same time how can he be one? In other words, was Jesus of Nazareth
the human nature and Christ the divine, or were they one? 14 This problem was
answered at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus15 in 431 under St. Cyril of
Alexandria, who placed emphasis Christ being one nature, one subject.
However, Nestorius, the Bishop of Constantinople, who was a follower of Theodore
of Mopsuestia the principal supporter of the Antiochene tradition of Christology,
upheld the incorruptibility of Christ’s human nature; this meant that he made a
differentiation between Christ’s Godhead and his humanity, that Christ was in two
natures. He was condemned for this belief by the West, as they falsely interpreted
Nestorius point of view to mean that Christ was divided into two people, when in fact
Nestorius was just concerned to defend Christ’s humanity, in order to avoid any
confusion between the divine and the human qualities. This difference of opinion
meant, that despite the decision made at Ephesus, the debate raged on further until the
Ibid, p.15 ‘…something of the same approach could be expressed if you were to affirm that in the
14
incarnate one there was to be found one logical subject out of two ‘natures’ rather than in two
‘natures’.’
15
Another point debated at the Council at Ephesus was the use of the term Theokotos, or ‘the Mother
of God’ for the Virgin Mary. The Christians living in East Syria and Mesopotamia, living mainly in
Persia, outside the perimeter of the Byzantine Empire, felt unable to accept definition of Theokotos.
Divided from the Byzantine Church through language, social and cultural barriers they referred to
themselves as ‘The Church of The East’, or Nestorians. The term ‘Nestorian’ is a Western writers
tradition and is somewhat misleading because they do not credit Nestorius with importance, but instead
follow Theodore of Mopsuestia.
10
Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, in 451. Finally, the question of Christ’s nature
was settled; weight was given to his two natures, but there was only one subject.
The Chalcedonian confession became the official doctrine of the Western Churches;
to Pope Leo I it symbolized the accepted belief. However, in the east the situation
was very different. Not only were there Nestorians living in and around Persia, who
could not accept this, but there were also supporters of St Cyril 16, to whom the
doctrine made little sense. The controversies over the Councils of Ephesus and
Chalcedon ultimately alienated the churches in the Mediterranean world. Not only
was the hostility between Rome and Constantinople intensified, but also the debate
produced the independent Nestorian Church and a selection of Monophysite Churches
in Armenia, Egypt, Syria and Ethiopia.
Further Difficulties
From the outset, the Eastern and Western Churches had almost incompatible views on
many matters; one of the most striking was on authority within the church. The
Orthodox Church saw the Roman Church as an ‘elder brother in the universal
episcopate’17, however much to the annoyance of the papacy they did not recognise
right of the Roman Church to jurisdiction in the Eastern Church. The East could also
not accept the charisma of the pope, or his infallibility.
16
The Armenian Church eventually joined St. Cyril’s ranks by appealing to the judgement of the
patriarch of Constantinople, after initially being exposed to Nestorian ideas. The Armenians adopted
the Imperial Orthodoxy and rejected the Council of Chalcedon as Nestorian.
17
K. Ware, Chapter 4: Eastern Christendom in: The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, ed. J.
McManners (Oxford, 1990), p.146.
11
The problems were exacerbated by yawning social differences; for example in the
Eastern provinces were much better educated than the Western18, as education was not
just the preserve of the clergy; the lay men more likely to take part in theological
debate. In addition, in the East, the right kind of worship appears to have been more
important than the belief, they were fiercely devout to their liturgy, up to, and
including the way the churches were decorated, they resented any form of criticism.
All these problems were enhanced by language difficulties, meaning that during
debates more harm was done because of inadvertently poor translation.
These
differences do go some way in explaining the problems that William of Rubruck
encountered in his dealings with the Nestorians in the Mongol household. Moreover,
linguistic and cultural differences also emerged in the communion between the
Byzantine Church and the Nestorians and over a period, a separate communion
developed which was primarily Syriac in language and culture.
By the eleventh century Christendom was still intact, apart form the schismatic
churches of the East, such as the Nestorians and the Mono-physite Churches. By the
middle of the thirteenth century, it was a different story. It is hard to establish a
certain date for the schism, which has often been marked as 1054, because of the
argument between the Patriarch, Michael Cerularius and Cardinal Humbert. This
undoubtedly created an uncomfortable atmosphere, but at this stage, the situation
could have been rectified.
18
Although Rubruck would find that the reverse of this was the case with regards to the Nestorians.
12
It is most noticeable that the difference in rituals and doctrine caused problems. In the
former, there could at least be some freedom, but once Rome had introduced the term
Filioque the two sides could not agree, although this disagreement does appear to
have been founded on political differences and not on theological grounds, just like
the situation that caused the schism. The reform of the Church of Rome led to an
Imperialist policy; combine this with a Norman invasion in south Italy, where there
was a large Greek community and a noticeable absence of papal support, and these
only served to underline the differences of opinion about the creed and rituals used in
the Churches. Then the papacy offended the Byzantines by excommunicating the
Emperor and endorsing Norman aggression against the Greeks in Italy.
Shortly afterwards the crusades arrived. The Byzantines needed help against the
Turks and were eager for allies, but the concept of a Holy War was something quite
alien to them, they also had little interest in the wars in Palestine. On the other hand,
the crusaders believed that they were coming to the aid of Eastern Christendom19 and
could not understand why they were not welcomed with open arms. It is ironical, that
the Crusades, which were intended to defend fellow Christians against Muslim
aggression, resulted in deterioration in the relations between the Latins and
Byzantines. The crusade armies were large, unruly, and inclined to pillaging, this
alienated the Byzantines; when the Fourth Crusade sacked the city of Constantinople
in 1204, they left a permanent impression on Byzantine attitude towards the crusaders
and Rome.
19
Runciman, Schism, p.166.
13
Therefore, it is hardly surprising that as the centuries passed East and West failed to
understand each other and as Innocent IV sent the bands of intrepid friars into the East
they had a large number of religious, cultural and historical differences to deal with,
making the task of initiating contact all the more difficult.
Papal Agenda
The Mongol Threat and Papal Reaction
It is easy to see, with hindsight, that the Mongols advance was an enormous menace
to Christianity, because they threatened the Catholic world on two fronts, in Europe
and the Near East. When the Mongols arrived in Hungary and Poland, they challenged
one of the most powerful people in Eastern Europe. However, it was not just the
older Latin states that the Mongols were dominating, but also the relatively new
colonies along the Baltic Coast. In Syria and Palestine, the Christians were also under
threat from the Muslims; this situation was exacerbated by the fact that there were
other Christians, such as the Jacobites and Nestorians, living in and outside the Latin
territories.
Before the missions departed, there had been pleas for help from a number of
besieged nations, but the had all yielded a negative response from the papacy. When
the Georgian Queen wrote to the pope, apologising for her failure to send assistance to
those on the Fifth Crusade, she explained it was because she was under attack;
however, this was of little consequence. Probably because the source of the trouble
was not close enough to home for the papacy to comprehend its significance; this was
proven to the case in 1239, when the Queen wrote again; she was told that Georgia
was too far away for assistance to be sent. From the pope’s perspective, the Mongols
14
were attacking people to whom he was indifferent, or was in opposition to. In the
case of the Muslim delegation that tried to secure help arrived in England, it is more
understandable that the response was to let the Mongols and Muslims destroy each
other so that Catholicism could prevail.
The catalyst for change in the papal response was the Mongol invasion of Poland and
Hungary; the reason that the papal response was different was probably that these two
countries were members of the Catholic Church.
Consequently, Gregory IX
advocated an alliance of Christians for the rescue of central Europe, in the form of a
crusade, in 1241. Unfortunately, at this time the Roman Church was at war with
Frederick II20, who was occupying the Papal States in Italy, which meant that such an
alliance was a pipe dream.
By the time of the Council of Lyons in 1245, Innocent IV was expressing similar
concerns on the subject of the Mongols as his predecessor, Gregory IX; he had
already published an encyclical summoning a council to discuss ways of protecting
the Latin West from Mongol invasion. At Lyons, amongst other matters that appeared
on the agenda, was the Mongol question. Previous to this, he had already dispatched
the three embassies to the Mongols and written to the Patriarch Berthold of Aquilia
authorizing him to preach a crusade.
However, the problem concerning Frederick, who was still irritating the papacy,
combined with the recent turn of events in the Holy Land meant that the would be
world conquerors were further down the papacy’s list of importance once more. On
20
The pope had previously excommunicated Frederick.
15
23rd August 1244, Jerusalem fell, then shortly afterwards, on the 17th October, the
Egyptian army, which the Khwarizmian Turks reinforced, routed the Frankish army,
at La Forbie. Papal concerns were once more directed at the Holy Land and with the
preparations of Louis’ IX crusade and not at the Mongols.
The Mongol withdrawal from Hungary in 1242, may well have added fuel to the fire
of rumours about the legend of Prester John and the belief that liberation was coming
from the East. Considering this, it is easier to appreciate why the papal agenda was
not directed fully towards the Mongols.
The Mongols had already fought the
Muslims, but more importantly, Christian princess, albeit Nestorian Christians had
married into the Mongol Imperial family, where they played an important political
role. It was hoped that even if the Great Khan was not a Christian then at least he
would be sympathetic towards the Christian cause and prepared to fight Islam,
especially in December 1248, when Eljigidei’s letter arrived, claiming that the
Mongols wanted ‘nothing other than the welfare of Christendom’21. Amazingly, it
was never considered that if Onc Khan, the Kerait was Christian, then the person who
defeated him and whose descendants subsequently laid waste to Hungary would
probably not be the person to deliver the Christians from the Muslims.
The suggestion is, that if so much else was occupying the papal agenda, and not just
the Mongols, then the Mendicant Friars journey was not only based on the possibility
of influencing Mongol policy; the missions must have had another purpose; the
21
Eljigidei, Letter in: Letter of Eudes de Châteauroux, Papal Legate, to Pope Innocent IV, dated 31
March 1249: trans. From Latin text ed. In L. D’Achery, Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aloquot
scriptorum qui in Galliae bibliothecis delituerant, new edition by Etienne Baluze, Edmond Martène and
L.F.J. de la Barre (Paris, 1723, 3 vols), III, (RHUL Course File), p.4.
16
behaviour of the envoys demonstrates this. Ascelin’s group took nearly two years to
get to the Mongols, which implies that a prompt reply to the papal letters was not the
only factor in the decision to send envoys. John of Plano Carpini says that they ‘went
to the Tartars and the other oriental nations’22 and Rubruck explains that his chief
reason for going was to find the German slaves settled in Bolat, even requesting of
Möngke, that he be allowed to return to them ‘as they need a priest to instruct them’23.
Equally interesting is the fact that, not long after the two papal Bulls were drafted
which the friars carried to the Mongols, a letter, dated late March, was addressed to
the various rulers and Ecclesiastes in the East, including the Bulgars and the Cumans,
urging them to return to the Roman Church. It is possible that, in view of the
Mongol’s arrival on the scene, that the negotiations that had continued sporadically
between the Church of Rome and Russia, might actually amount to something.
Indeed, John of Plano Carpini did engage in negotiations with Daniil and Basil,
regarding their adhesion to the Roman church.
Similar opportunities were seen
opening in the East; Andrew of Longjumeau had contacts with Nestorian Ecclesiastes,
and Rubruck lived with Sergius, a Nestorian priest, whilst at the court of Möngke.
Moreover, en route Andrew of Longjumeau also visited the Ayyubid rulers of Hims
and Baalbek in Syria; as for the long delay in Ascelin’s mission before he arrived at
Baiju’s camp, Simon de Saint-Quentin provides a good deal of information about the
Sultanate of Rūm; his sources must have been the Latin mercenaries in the sultan’s
22
John of Plano Carpini, History of the Mongols in The Mission to Asia, ed. C. Dawson, (London,
1980), p.3.
23
Rubruck, The Mission, (XXXIV, 6) p.238.
17
service. There is nothing new in the idea of trying to win over the Seljuk Sultan,
Innocent’s predecessor had tried to do so and the idea of peacefully trying to convert
Muslim rulers went back as far as Innocent III.
Therefore, the missions had a many fold function, including intelligence gathering in
order to learn about the Mongol Empire; Carpini says that he is going as a spy 24. The
missions were also used as part of a wider policy to exploit the threat of the Mongols
and bring infidels and schismatics into the Roman Church, although, it is with the
Eastern Churches that this paper is concerned. It is probable that Innocent conceived
the idea of having a united Catholic front against the Mongols. In the long term, the
policy of Innocent failed, as it became clear that the west could not deliver protection
from the Mongols and some of the Eastern leaders renounced the Roman Church and
came to terms with the Mongols. It appears that, some Eastern Christians felt safer
under Mongol protection, than siding with Rome against the Mongols; a circumstance
that no one in the West could have anticipated.
The Friars
Ecclesiastical Reform and the Development of the New Orders
The twelfth century observed a significant evangelical development, which flourished
in the wake of the Gregorian attack on clerical corruption and a return to the apostolic
life.
Leading the apostolic life meant imitating Christ’s asceticism and living in
complete and voluntary poverty and personal holiness; this was combined with a duty
to preach repentance.
. ‘having learned the truth about the desire and intention of the Tartars, we could make this known to
24
the Christians’ in: Carpini, History, p.3.
18
One of the consequences of this evangelical development was the growth of new
religious orders. The most famous of these new orders was probably the Cistercians,
who were aiming to reform the Benedictine monasticism. The Cistercians the greatest
rivals were the Augustinians, who were committed to a life of celibacy, poverty and
obedience. However, the twelfth century was not only a time for revitalisation of the
religious, but also heralded an increase of the heretical groups such as the Cathars25
and the Waldenses.
One of the reactions to the heresies, which overwhelmed the medieval church, was the
development of the Dominican order; during the pontificate of Honorius III the Order
of Friars Preacher was officially established, a name suggested by the pope himself.
The Dominicans were preachers dedicated to devotion, apostolic poverty and greater
learning; they were committed to preaching to Waldenses and Cathars in an attempt to
bring them back into the Catholic fold. Of the missions that Innocent IV sent to the
East, Ascelin and Andrew of Longjumeau were Dominican.
Despite the respect that St. Dominic and his order were awarded with, it became
overshadowed by the development of the Franciscans, named after their leader,
Francis of Assisi. The Brothers Minor were born out of the same apostolic tradition
that rendered the Waldenses and the Cathars, as they too were dedicated to the literal
realization of the instructions of Christ. Francis of Assisi’s order was based on an
imitation of Christ; the monks were bound to absolute poverty, simplicity and
25
Cathar, from the Greek Catharos, meaning ‘Pure Ones’.
19
humility. The monks travelled in twos helping peasants in their work, preaching
repentance and caring for those on the edge of society.
Eventually the orders grew so that changes were inevitable, one effect of the growth
of both Dominicans and Franciscans was the establishment of regular houses, or
cloisters in towns and cities, primarily because that is where the mendicant26 nature of
the orders was most practical; undoubtedly this facilitated an increase of religiosity
amongst the laity. Another inevitable change occurred in their views to absolute
poverty, as it proved impractical for a travelling monk to take nothing with him,
something that William of Rubruck would learn in Mongol lands under the harshest of
circumstances.
Innocent’s decision to send envoys to the east did not come out of nowhere; both
Francis and Dominic saw the role of the mission extending beyond the realms of
Christendom27. The 1230’s saw a number of missions to regions beyond the Rus
principalities. The purpose had been but to convert a nation assumed to be the pagan
relatives of the Hungarians, who still inhabited the territory abandoned by the
Magyars in the ninth century; very few of these missionaries arrived in ‘Greater
Hungary’, even fewer returned. One person who did return was the missionary Julian,
26
Mendicancy, meaning to be dependent on charity for a living.
27
‘I say to you in truth that the Lord chose and sent the friars for the profit of the souls of all men in the
whole world, and they are to be received not only in the lands of the faithful but also of the infidel.’
Francis of Assisi to Cardinal Hugolino as reported in the Scripta Leonis Rufini et Angeli sociorum,
cited in: C. Morris, The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 – 1250, (Oxford, 1991),
p.486.
20
who submitted a report to the pope, Gregory IX, upon his return. It contained some
information about the Mongols, who at that moment, in 1238, were in action in the
Ural region. This meant that the papacy certainly had information about the progress
of the Mongols prior to the decision to send Carpini, Ascelin and Andrew.
Missionary work was aimed at converting non-Christians, such as Muslims as well as
bringing non-Catholic Christians into a union with the Church of Rome. On both
accounts seems to have been a degree of success, in the short term at least. The
Seljuk Sultan of Rūm was at variance with the Ayyubid sultans, who ruled Syria and
Egypt on his southern border. Moreover, he was supposedly sympathetic towards
Christianity and Pope Gregory IX, who had aspirations towards his conversion,
continued to be on friendly terms with the Sultan in the 1230’s.
In Eastern Europe, there were advances in relations with the Eastern Churches.
Firstly, a number of Cuman rulers received baptism from the Dominican missionaries
sent from Hungary, some of whom developed a feudal bond with the King of
Hungary.
As a result, of this in 1228, the pope approved the foundation of a
bishopric. Secondly, there was also a reported improvement in relations with a nonLatin Church in the Near East; in 1238, the Jacobite Patriarch, during his visit to
Jerusalem, promised to renounce all his heretical errors and remain obedient to the
Church of Rome.
There were also attempts at reconciliation with the Orthodox Church of Russia, before
the departure of Carpini and the other missionaries.
The missionary work was
underway in Russia, from 1222, with the arrival of St. Hyacinth, who worked in Kiev
21
for about four years, from 1222 – 1226. It was during this time that a Dominican
priory was established, after they received a residence from Vladimir III.
However, the situation was to change as the Mongols arrived. The Cumans called to
the Russian princes for help against the invaders, as political ties and marriage united
them. When the alliance was crushed, the Russian princes looked to the west for a
solution to the Mongols. Messengers were sent to Bishop William of Modena in
1227, requesting doctrinal instruction and asking for help against the invaders. This
corresponded with Honorius’ III programme of papal expansion in the North East.
Before the union could be achieved, Honorius died; nevertheless, his successor,
Gregory IX, was keen to follow the same cause of action.
Continuing his predecessor’s work in the summer of 1231, Gregory conveyed a bull
to George, the Grand Duke of Suzdal28. Negotiations between the two sides were
aided by the Cistercian Bishop of Prussia, who reported that ‘George followed the
Greek and Ruthenian customs and rites, for which he was so zealous that he forced his
subjects to observe the same rites.’29. This perhaps should have acted as a warning to
the Pope, that Russia was not ready for a union. It is a wonder that the papacy did not
stop to consider that if George was so devoted to his Orthodox religious beliefs, why
did he want to convert to Catholicism? This may however, be a modern day question;
the thirteenth century society was one that believed people would convert to
Christianity simply because the tenets of the religion had been explained; we need
look no further for an example of this than the letters that Innocent IV sent with the
28
Zatko, The Union of Suzdal: 1222 – 1252, in The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, (7), 1957, p.36.
29
ibid, p.36.
22
friars to the Mongols30. However, the same Bishop also reported that the Duke was
eager to show obedience to the apostolic see and Gregory IX was naturally delighted
considering this, it is not surprising that he accepted the plea for doctrinal help.
From 1232, there was an immense rush of missionary activity in the conversion of
Ruthenian heretics, and a Cistercian abbot was appointed as the first Bishop of Russia.
However, the Russian reaction to the Latin prelate demonstrates that the Russian wish
to join the Church of Rome may have been initiated by the invasion of the Mongols,
in 1223 and not out of any newly found religious ideals; the Dominicans were
expelled from Kiev in 1233 and from Suzdal in 123731.
But, perhaps more
importantly, in 1237 refugees from Greater Hungary were forbidden by George of
Suzdal from becoming Catholics, although he had no objection to them becoming
Christians. This shows, as Zatko noted, that ‘his prohibition was certainly dictated by
his attachment and zeal for the rites and customs of the Greeks and Ruthenians for the
church.’32 This vacillating between adherence to the Roman See and the Orthodox
faith implies that the Russian promise of allegiance to the pope may have come about
because of the threat that the Mongols posed. Immediately after 1223 and the defeat
30
‘…we have thought fit to send you our beloved son Friar Laurence of Portugal and his companions
of the Order of Friars Minor…so that following their salutary instructions you may acknowledge Jesus
Christ the very son of God and worship his glorious name by practising the Christian religion. ’ The
bull of Pope Innocent IV Addressed to the Emperor of the Tartars, in: The Mission to Asia, ed. C.
Dawson, (London, 1980), p.74 – 5.
31
In addition, the Russian princes took quite a defiant stance against the papacy in their opposition to
the Baltic Crusade; in return, the pope preached a crusade against the principalities in 1237.
32
Zatko, Union, p.39.
23
at Kalka little more is heard of the Mongols in Russia until December 1237. By 1245,
the Russian principalities were completely subjugated by the Mongols and the
appearance of Carpini, bearing papal letters to the Eastern Churches offered them a
reprieve. Maybe the missionaries should have looked at the behaviour of George,
Duke of Suzdal, before embarking on the exercise, as this earlier unsuccessful attempt
at a union was somewhat prophetic of things to come.
24
Chapter 2: The Early Missions
The first of the embassies sent to the Mongols departed on the eve of the Council of
Lyons, in 1245. This party was composed of members of the new religious order of
Friars Minor, or Franciscans, which had been founded during the pontificate of
Innocent III some thirty years earlier. The party was led by John of Plano Carpini,
who made the journey overland to the Great Khan. The parties carried with them, not
only the Bulls address to the Mongols, but also the Papal Bull Cum simus super
‘addressed to the patriarchs, archbishops, bishops in the countries of the Bulgars,
Vlachs, Gazari, Slavs and all other Eastern Christians’33.
Carpini was chosen for the task, as he was experienced and trustworthy; he had
undertaken groundbreaking work in establishing the Franciscan Order in Bohemia,
Hungary, Poland and Norway.
He had knowledge of languages and of eastern
European affairs; this meant he was suitable to handle the problem of the reunion the
Russian Orthodox Church. He was acquainted with the King Wenceslas of Bohemia
and the Boleslav V, Duke of Cracow, useful contacts in these negotiations, as they
both supplied him with letters of safe-conduct and supplies. Friar Benedict the Pole
joined Carpini at the domain of Duke Boleslav; his appointment was prompted by the
need for an interpreter who understood Slavonic languages. Moreover, John of Plano
Carpini felt that Stephen, his original travel companion, would not stand up to the
harshness of the expedition.
33
Ibid, p. 44.
25
In Cracow, they sought Conrad, Duke of Masovia, and Lenczy in Poland, who
exercised his authority on the Duchy of Galich34, patrimony of the Russian brothers
Daniel and Vasil’ko Romanovich. Daniel was the leader of the Russian princes at this
time. As Carpini and Benedict conversed with Conrad, they met Vasil’ko; Daniel was
not present at Cracow, as he had been summoned to Batu. Vasil’ko, on the advice of
Conrad and other important individuals35 assisted the Friars in their journey to the
Mongols, but not until Carpini had read the papal letter, ‘in which he admonished
them that they should return to the unity of the Holy Mother Church.’ 36. Innocent IV
was hoping that they would acknowledge the supremacy of the Roman Church and
join the papal bloc37 against the Mongols. Despite the fact that the friars were not
given a firm answer, concerning the union, there was undoubtedly an air of optimism;
Carpini states that ‘We gave them the same counsel and also led them round as well
as we could to this point of view.’38. This suggests that there was an air of agreement
about the union and Carpini’s view of the Russian Christians must have been
optimistic.
On route home from the Mongols, Carpini and Benedict visited the Russian princes
again, where they received a positive answer to the request for the union, ‘They
34
Galich is the modern day name for Halicz.
35
Carpini, History, p.51
36
ibid, p.51
37
B. Szczesniak, The Mission of Giovanni de Plano Carpini and Benedict of Vratislava to Halicz, in
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History (6), 1965, p.16.
38
Carpini, History, p.51.
26
answered us jointly declaring that they wished to have the Lord Pope as their special
lord and father, and the Holy Roman Church as their lady and mistress,’ 39. Therefore,
in the short-term, the friars were successful in the mission for a union with the
Russian Church.
This was in line with the papal agenda for uniting with the
schismatic Eastern Churches, a requirement of which was that Eastern Christendom
should accept the supremacy of the Church of Rome and the pope as their leader,
something that had seemed less likely as the centuries had passed. Furthermore,
Carpini leaves the reader with a positive impression of more good things to come as
he returns home with envoys and letters from the princes.
The agreement between Daniel and Carpini has led Szczesniak to believe that the
former was interested in the union for religious reasons rather than political ones. He
maintains that if Daniel had used political motivation he would have encountered
‘stiff opposition’40 and gives weight to the religiosity of the union because Vasil’ko
invited the envoys home with the purpose of converting the nobles to the papal
agenda.
However, before any discussion can take place as to the actual nature of the union, it
is worth considering the political turmoil that controlled the Russian principalities in
the run up to the events of 1245 - 47; moreover, what did Daniel and Vasil’ko hope to
gain from an alliance with the papacy?
39
ibid, p. 70.
40
Szczesniak, Mission, p.18.
27
The first problem facing the Russians in 1245 was the Mongol invasion, which came
in two stages. Initially, the Russians suffered defeat when they had gone to the rescue
of the Cumans, in a conflict on the River Kalka in 1223; it was at this time that the
Russian princes had first looked to the West for help against the Mongols. Then the
second invasion came after the Mongols devastated all potential centres of rebellion to
the South and Southeast of the Russian principalities. From this point on, Batu’s
army crushed many of the Rus princes, including Riazen 1237, Vladimir 1238, and
significantly Kiev in 1240; Galich fell after only a short siege41.
The second problem for Daniel and Vasil’ko was the relationship of Galich with
Poland. Galich was under the suzerainty of the Polish Monarchs; the boiling point in
the relationship came with the defeat of Roman42, the Duke of Vladimir and Galich in
the Battle of Zawichost in 1205, by Leszek I, the father of Boleslav V of Poland.
Then, as the Mongols invaded Poland in 1241, Boleslav V decamped to Hungary
seeking protection. Conrad, friend of the brothers, saw his opportunity and as his
nephew, Bolko occupied the throne, he overthrew the administration. Despite this,
Boleslav managed to defeat his uncle, Conrad and took back his throne. Further
contact between the two sides were characterised by open aggression.
The friendship between Galich and Masovia, and Lenczy, was established on the
usual bonds of marriage between families, but there was also strong political
reasoning behind their camaraderie. This was based on each party’s conflict with
41
J. Fennel, The Crisis of Medieval Russia, (Harlow, 1983), p. 76 – 83.
42
Roman was the father of Daniel and Vasil’ko.
28
Boleslav V; on the one hand, there was Daniel and Vasil’ko’s obvious anger at their
father’s death and Polish interference in Galich and on the other hand, Conrad’s
resentment of Boleslav putting an end to his expansionist agenda in Poland. This
made the two parties natural allies. It also means that when Carpini and Benedict
appeared with the Papal Bull, Conrad43 could see a way out of the situation for the
Russian brothers, which also meant that pressure would be applied to his own enemy.
It is possible that he had this in mind as he urged Vasilko to give the friars all the help
they needed in getting to the Mongols44.
Thus, the principality of Volynia-Galich was under pressure from two sides, the
Mongols, who were demanding humiliating submission and Poland, which was also
demanding acquiescence. By joining the papal bloc, it is possible that they hoped to
gain protection from interfering Polish Monarchs and could call upon the West for
help against the Mongols; thereby, killing two birds with one stone. This would
indicate, that from Daniel and Vasil’ko’s perspective, this was a political union and
not the highly prized religious union that Innocent IV was intent on establishing and
Szczesniak believed in. If Daniel was trying to remove the subjugation of Russia by
Poland and the Mongols, would he have willingly signed up to being ruled by the
papacy? The political nature of the union is substantiated by events that surrounded
Daniel’s nominee for the position of Metropolitan45 of Kiev and Galich, in 1243. The
43
This is merely a theory, but one can imagine the talks between Conrad and Vasilko, the former
suggesting the benefits of a union with Rome.
44
Carpini, History, p.51.
45
The Metropolitan of Kiev was established as the head of the Russian Orthodox Church until 1448.
29
nominee was Cyril, who was Orthodox by religion. Daniel sent Cyril, in 1248 to
Constantinople to be consecrated and vested in his office instead of to Rome; in other
words, he was still looking East for his religious instruction46. Considering that
Carpini and Benedict only returned to see Daniel and Vasil’ko in the summer of 1247,
to ratify the union, it is only a matter of months before Daniel is reneging on his
promise. This is speculation, but it seems unlikely that if this was a religious union,
that Cyril would have been sent to Constantinople, heart of Orthodox Christianity; one
would have expected the ratification of his position to take place in Rome47.
Once more, this is conjecture, but had Innocent IV or Carpini been aware that this
union was simply to strengthen Daniel’s political position and was not based
primarily on a return to Rome then it seems unlikely that the union could have ever
existed. Up until now, the papacy had not assisted countries that did not belong to the
Church of Rome, take for example Georgia, the Queen of which wrote twice to the
pope asking for assistance, which was twice denied. It seems that political help
required religious allegiance; this indicates that Innocent IV would not have accepted
one alliance without the other, the implication is that Rome did not distinguish the
political from the religious when forming her associations.
46
One of the areas of contention in the split in the Church was the fact that Rome claimed supremacy;
it seem absurd to the Byzantines that they should defer to Rome on matters pertaining to their own
church.
47
This situation seems remarkably similar to the eviction of the Dominican Friars, out of Kiev and
Suzdal about a decade before; similar in the sense that it shows the dismissal of the Catholic Church.
In each of the situations, a union was achieved, but there was a rejection of the new religious order.
30
At the same time as the negotiations were underway with Daniel and Vasil’ko in the
Southern sphere of Russia, equally interesting talks were being held with the Northern
sphere, in the principality of Suzdal, as discussed previously. Although talks had
previously taken place, Carpini and Benedict only joined this discussion in
Qaraqorum, where they met members of the Suzdalian royal family, the most
prominent member of which was Yaroslav.
We know nothing of what passed between Yaroslav and Carpini from what the latter
wrote in his History of the Mongols’; we can only conclude that relations were good
because one of Yaroslav’s soldiers acted as an interpreter for Carpini in his
discussions with the Mongols.
The reason that this meeting is so interesting is
because Yaroslav died shortly after. Much ink has been spilt debating whether he
died of natural causes, or was poisoned48, but Carpini who was there described the
scenario thus, ‘He was invited by the Emperor’s mother, who gave him to eat and
drink with her own hand as if to show him honour. On his return to his lodging he
was immediately taken ill and died seven days later and his whole body turned bluishgrey in a strange fashion. This made everybody think that he had been poisoned
there’49. Moreover, in the time immediately after Yaroslav’s death, Carpini and his
retinue were all but starved by the Mongols. This raises the question as to how much
the Mongols knew of the discussions between the Russian princes and the papal
envoys, and how much they knew about the papal negotiations with Suzdal from the
past years; there were Mongols operating in Kiev form 1240, so information must
48
Zatko, Union, p.47.
49
Carpini, History, p.65.
31
have been travelling back to the Khan. Yaroslav, as the vassal of the Mongols, was
behaving treacherously in his negotiations with the papacy and suffered the ultimate
consequence; this must have served a warning to Daniel50, that to go against his
Mongol overlord, was nothing short of suicidal51.
With the benefit of hindsight, this union was inevitably bound to fail; it seems
unlikely that the Russian Orthodox Church, which looked to the East for guidance,
was going to accept the ruling of Rome and the pope could not possibly accept a
purely political union. Ultimately, Daniel rejected Rome and came to terms with the
Mongols, as did Aleksandr Nevskiy52, who had no choice, but to go to the Golden
Horde and offer his submission.
However, in 1247, when Carpini left Daniel Russia he must have been pleased with
that which had been established, for an agreement had been reached. As for the union
with Suzdal, hopes were high; upon Yaroslav’s death, Aleksandr had been summoned
to receive his father’s lands, but he had hesitated about subjection to the Mongols, this
probably encouraged Carpini to think that Suzdal was ready for an anti-mongol
50
Yaroslav was the successor of George, Duke of Suzdal, who died at the hands of the Mongols in
1238, when he fought against them; this again could have served to make Daniel more suspicious of the
Mongols and induce him to adhere temporarily to Rome.
51
Daniel must have known about the death of Yaroslav, even if only when Carpini and Benedict
arrived back from Qaraqorum, as they could have used this to press upon him the urgency of the
situation and the need for Galich to join the anti-mongol alliance. However, this backfired as Daniel
eventually came to terms with the Mongols and accepted their control
52
Aleksandr Nevskiy was Yaroslav’s successor.
32
alliance.
For the short term at least, there had been positive advances in the
relationship between Rome and Russia.
The other report that is of interest in the relations between the East and West is the
one written by the Dominican, Andrew of Longjumeau, who departed from Lyons in
1245 and returned in April 1247. Although brief, the report gives an insight into the
Mongol world and expresses optimism about the Christians of the East.
This optimism concentrates on the monk53 that Andrew spent twenty days with, whilst
on route to Baiju. In 1235, the Khan, Ogedei had appointed Simeon Raban-ata, a
Syrian Cleric, as head of the Nestorian Christians in Tabriz. He is an instrument of the
‘good intentions’ part of the Mongol society, providing hope for the Christians,
especially as he appears to have a good relationship with the Khan54.
It was important to the Christians in the West that there were Christians amongst the
Mongols, especially ones that appeared to be influential.
Equally importantly,
Andrew goes out of his way to establish the credentials of the monk; ‘Nor must we
53
‘Among these troops there was in authority one who in behaviour, dress and faith was a religious and
a Catholic: he is referred to as a monk.’ Andrew of Longjumeau, Abstract of Andrew of Longjumeau’s
first mission, in: Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, VI (Additamenta), (RHUL Course File), p.1.
54
Ibid, p.1. Simeon ‘has received from the king such authority that before any kingdom is to be
attacked he asks for a peaceful settlement, protects churches and rebuilds and restores those destroyed’.
The fact that he is allowed to protect and restore churches and provide patronage for the religious and
the Christians would have been viewed in a very positive light in the West.
33
pass over the fact that the afore-mentioned monk is of such righteousness and
abstinence that he is indeed on sure grounds regarded as a saint.’55
This meeting with the monk was important to the Western Christian world as he was
everything that the West was hoping to find, religious, devout, and well placed in
Mongol society. Moreover, when Andrew presented him the two letters addressed to
the schismatic churches Simeon replied with a letter expressing allegiance to the
Apostolic See, which is exactly in line with the papal agenda.
Therefore, as the early missions returned from the Mongols there was every reason for
optimism regarding the Eastern Christian Churches. On a national level Carpini had
prepared the way for a union with the Russian Orthodox Church, returning with letters
and envoys from Daniel and Vasil’ko of Galich and the knowledge that Aleksandr
Nevskiy had not yet submitted to the Mongols. On a personal level, Andrew had
returned with letters from Simeon, declaring loyalty to the pope; it seems that at the
end of 1247, there seemed no reason to suppose that Innocent’s anti-mongol bloc
would not come into being.
There was even more reason for optimism shortly after the friars returned with arrival
of Eljigidei’s letter, especially in view of Sempad’s56 letter, written in February 1248
and delivered before the envoys arrived and corroborated Eljigidei’s communication,
55
Ibid. p.3.
56
Sempad was the Constable of Armenia, and brother to the King of Armenia. Armenia had already
submitted to the Mongols, although to the Armenians submission meant release from the threat of the
Seljuk Turks.
34
as it emphasised the Christian element amongst the Mongols57. However, the letter
also stressed ‘those whose task it is to preach deserve to be severely punished’.58.
With these factors in mind, the reported religious character of the Mongols and the
lack of good Catholic preachers, a mission of a purely spiritual nature soon departed,
that is the mission of Friar William of Rubruck. However, as Rubruck tried to
establish relations with the Christians in Central Asia in 1253, a mere eight years after
Carpini originally left, the impression that he came back with could not have been
more different.
57
‘And you must know that Christ’s power was – and still is - great, in that the peoples of that country
are Christians…I myself have been in their churches, and saw a painting of Jesus Christ…the Chan and
all his people have now become Christians.’ Sempad, Letter, in: Letter of Eudes de Châteauroux, Papal
Legate, to Pope Innocent IV, dated 31 March 1249: trans. From Latin text ed. In L. D’Achery,
Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aloquot scriptorum qui in Galliae bibliothecis delituerant, new
edition by Etienne Baluze, Edmond Martène and L.F.J. de la Barre (Paris, 1723, 3 vols), III, (RHUL
Course File), p.6.
58
Ibid, p.6.
35
Chapter 3: The Mission of Friar William of Rubruck
Rubruck made his journey to the Khan Möngke via the Mongol, Sartaq and his father
Batu, after hearing that Sartaq was a Christian. Unlike Carpini, and the envoys that
had gone before him, he was travelling in his capacity as a missionary, following the
example of St. Francis of Assisi, by going among the heathen to preach.
During the course of his travels, he met many Christians, but disappointingly never
met the German slaves that he had originally set out to find. He did meet other
Europeans, such as William Buchier, whose son became his interpreter when the
deficiencies of his own interpreter had become all too apparent. Rubruck also met
many non-Latin Christians, with whom he spent a considerable amount of time, such
as Sergius, the Armenian monk who arrived at the Mongol court about one month
before Rubruck and Coiac, the Nestorian priest. It was during these meetings that the
differences between the friars who were products of the Gregorian reform, and the
Eastern Christians, divorced through time and distance from their Western
counterparts, was never more obvious. The meetings that Rubruck had with the
Eastern Christians shall be dealt with thus, firstly, his general impression of the
Eastern Christians and their practices, and secondly, specific meetings with
individuals and groups.
The most damning indictment levied against the Eastern Christians by Rubruck was
nearly always against the Nestorians; on a number of occasions he recorded an angry
tirade against their rituals, beliefs and behavior, labeling them as unreliable and liars;
all of which tested his feeling of Christian unity. He seemed most distressed at their
36
faulty doctrine, especially objecting to the lack of an effigy on their crucifixes59.
However, this was not so much a question of faulty doctrine, but a difference of
meaning between the churches; the cross revered by the Nestorians and the
Armenians was not the cross of the passion, but rather, a symbol of Christ’s
restoration at the Last Judgment. This may be Rubruck’s one failing; he seems to
have no idea where the Eastern Christians were coming from and does not take into
account that there were obvious cultural, ritual and religious differences between
them; in this instance the accusation levied against the Nestorians and Armenians was
unwarranted.
Rubruck also denounced their behaviour when it came to their religious practices,
including their custom of praying with their hands outstretched60 instead of together,
although he does put this down to their wish not to be like the idolaters61. However,
this was a practice in the early Christian world and was adopted by priests in the West
when giving mass and used by the friars for preaching62; praying with ones hands
together was essentially the new idea.
The more time Rubruck spends travelling the lower his opinion of the Eastern
Christians becomes. He finds that they are guilty of drunkenness, usury, simony,
‘These Nestorians and Armenians never put a figure of Christ on their crosses, which makes it seem
59
as if they take a low view of the passion or find it an embarrassment.’ Rubruck, The Mission, (XV, 6),
p.117.
60
Ibid, (XXIV, 5), p.152.
61
Buddhists.
62
Rubruck, The Mission, p.152, footnote two.
37
bigamy; he finds the visitation of priests far from adequate, they are guilty of eating
meat on a Friday, and of following other traditions, such as that of the Saracens
63
.
The Nestorians charged a fee, which Rubruck put down to their greed; in other words,
as Rubruck himself said: ‘The Nestorians are ignorant…and…they are completely
corrupt.’64.
Once more, however, the problems that Rubruck encountered may have had less to do
with the actual religiousness of the people than to do with the situation they were
living in. Separated from Western Christendom and it’s reforms the Nestorians living
amongst the Mongols had to accommodate their lifestyle to that of the nomad, for that
is exactly what the Mongols were. They may have eaten meat on a Friday, but that
does appear to have been the bulk of the Mongol diet, making alternatives harder to
come by. Equally related to their lifestyle is the question of drunkenness as in the
Mongol tradition this was acceptable.
Despite the fact that Rubruck was obviously disappointed by the infrequency of the
visits of the priest, it must be remembered that the Mongol Empire was a vast place
and it could take a visiting priest a long time to get from one place to another. This
meant that when a priest arrived, as a precaution against insufficient clergy, ordination
of all the male children was probably the only way to guarantee enough priests65.
This would lead to problems of it’s own, such as poorly educated clergy.
63
Ibid, (XXVI, 12), p.163.
64
Ibid, (XXVI, 12), p.163.
65
Jackson, William of Rubruck, p. 61.
38
As for charging for their services, clearly there does not appear to be any other way
for the clergy to make a living. They were not granted the tithes that the West was
used to receiving, as Jackson noted: ‘the Nestorian clergy would inevitably be obliged
to fall back on other sources of income such as fees, so that the charge of simony does
not seem altogether appropriate to their situation.’66
Nevertheless, just as Rubruck was prejudiced against some of the Nestorian practices,
he soon discovered that intolerance could be a Nestorian trait. During Easter, a group
of Christians appeared, including Alans, Russians, Georgians and Armenians; they
had been forbidden to enter the Nestorian Church, as they were not baptised into the
Nestorian faith67. Rubruck’s disapproval is apparent because he is at pains to point
out that the Nestorians had kept this information from him. However, the refusal to
allow other Christian groups to use their church probably stems from their view of
other churches and differences in doctrine. For example, the Armenians, probably
from Greater Armenia, were monophysites and had therefore been in disagreement
with the Nestorians since the Council of Chalcedon. At the same time, the Russians
and the Alans were obliged to show allegiance to the Greek Orthodox patriarch,
something that the Nestorians did not do, as they recognised the papacy68.
66
Ibid, p.161.
67
Rubruck, The Mission, (XXX, 10), p.213.
68
Ibid, (XXX, 10), p.213 and (XXXI, 4), p.218.
39
The problems of intolerance, drunkenness, simony, usury and eating meat do appear
to be minor, though in comparison with some of the other problems that Rubruck
encountered. He seemed most concerned that the Nestorian priests were reciting their
religious ceremonies in Syriac, a language that they did not understand; likewise, their
Holy Scripture was written in Syriac. Rubruck likened these Nestorians, with no
understanding of Syriac to the monks of the West who had no grammar 69. This again
leads to problems of its own; if the clergy do not understand that which they are
teaching, then how can the congregation be expected to comprehend the significance
of what they are being taught, if indeed they are being taught anything at all. Rubruck
complains later on that the Nestorians do not instruct the Mongols properly, even
tolerating pagan practices70, going as far as to say that Nestorian behaviour was such a
bad influence that: ‘the lives of the Mo’als, and even of the tuins (that is idolators) are
more blameless than their own71.
The ability of the Nestorians to educate the Mongols was non-existent because they
had little understanding of what they were trying to teach. This is never more obvious
than at Qaraqorum, when: ‘Intellectually, the Nestorians with whom Rubruck
associated …come across as lightweight.’72.
At the Khan’s behest, the various
religious groups were to participate in a public debate to reveal the benefit of their
own religions. When Rubruck entered discussions with the Nestorians on the eve of
69
Ibid, (XXVI, 12), p. 163.
70
Ibid, (XXIX, 42), p. 199.
71
Ibid, (XXVI, 12), p. 164.
72
Jackson, William of Rubruck, p.63.
40
the debate he found them lacking in the basic ability to sustain an argument. He
established that when he asked them to prove the existence of God they were only
capable of quoting scripture73, which is naturally inadequate as the Muslims and the
Buddhists would have just quoted back from their own writings. Moreover, when
asked with whom they first wished to debate against, the Muslims or the Buddhists,
they answered the former74, it takes Rubruck’s response for them to realise that they
may be able to make allies of the Muslims for the beginning of the debate, as both
religions are monotheist. This debate75, like all that Rubruck had witnessed before,
serves to emphasize the different course that Eastern Christendom had taken from the
West; the image of the Nestorian Church that comes across is the image that the
Western Church had displayed before the Gregorian Reform.
In addition to these difficulties that Rubruck has with the Nestorians, he also found
them to be liars76, particularly in relation to what they had said about the illusive
Prester John: ‘only a tenth of what they say about him is true’77. This must have been
terribly disappointing for the West, although by now it must have been abundantly
clear to Rome that the Mongols were not the people that they had originally hope they
73
Rubruck, The Mission, (XXXII, 11), p.231.
74
The desire to debate first with the Muslims probably comes from the fact that relations with them
were more strained.
75
The debate serves to highlight the differences because the Nestorians are uneducated and poorly
equipped to deal with the demands of the discussion.
76
On another occasion, when the Nestorians testify to the fact the Möngke is a Christian he simply fails
to believe them as he has not seen this for himself. Rubruck, The Mission, (XXIX, 15), p. 187.
77
Ibid, (XVII, 2) p. 122.
41
were and that the stories that had come back to the West were nothing more than
supposition.
A great deal of what Rubruck noted about the Nestorians generally, he saw in the
behaviour of the individuals that he met. The prime example here is Coiac, one of the
grandees of Sartach’s court, and his brother. Despite the fact that early on Coiac
displays some understanding of Rubruck’s position as a friar78, in other words, that he
would have no personal belongings, his grasping nature becomes all to apparent; a
little later, as Rubruck prepares to leave for Batu’s household Coiac begins to separate
out his belongings: ‘as if they were his.’79
Nevertheless, Rubruck’s most serious condemnation of an Eastern Christian was
surprisingly not a Nestorian, but an Armenian; this was the monk Sergius, with whom
he spent time at Möngke’s court. At first, Rubruck was delighted to find a monk there
and shares his quarters, but it soon becomes apparent that this man was a corrupt and
dangerous associate; to begin with, Sergius was no monk, he was a weaver by trade80,
and an illiterate weaver at that. Moreover, he had apparently told Möngke that the
Christian world would submit if the Khan adopted Christianity, which shows as much
about his understanding of Mongol desires and comprehension of their belief that they
were at the pinnacle of the world order, as it does about his Christian principles and
wish to ingratiate himself with the Khan.
78
Ibid, (XV, 1- 3), 114 – 5.
79
Ibid, (XVI, 2) p.119.
80
Ibid, (XXIX, 39), p.198.
42
Altogether Sergius was a rather unsavoury character and Rubrucks’s suspicion of him
is well founded.
The monk was aggressive, and at one juncture was even
reprimanded by the Khan and his tent moved further away from the court because the
Khan found him disrespectful and distasteful81.
However, these problems seem minor in comparison to his heretical doctrine and his
admission to murder, although these two incidents are linked to each other. In the
first instance Rubruck interrupts the argument between the Armenian monk and the
Nestorian priest Jonas. The monk maintained: ‘Did not the Devil, on the first day,
bring earth from the four quarters of the world, make clay of it and then mould it into
a human body…’82This is the Manichaean heresy and Rubruck is aghast to hear it, it
is this argument that causes a temporary rift between Sergius and Rubruck, as the
former would not speak to the latter; but perhaps most revealingly, even the
Nestorians complained about the monk83.
Shortly after the disagreement between Sergius and Jonas, the latter died. The monk
claims that he killed Jonas using the soothsayers: ‘Do not be concerned, it was I who
killed him with my prayers.’84 Rubruck is naturally aghast and informs him that
people who behave in such a manner are excommunicated, moreover he wishes to
81
Ibid, (XXIX, 54), p189.
82
Ibid, (XXIX, 56), p.206.
83
Ibid, (XXIX, 57), p.58.
84
Ibid, (XXXI, 7), p.219.
43
have nothing more to do with the monk, but can not move from the shared living
quarters without the consent of the Khan. The death of Jonas85exposes the petty
intrigues of the Mongol court, as each of the religious factions was jostling with the
others to gain the khan’s favour.
All things considered, Rubruck’s impression of the Eastern Christians was less than
favourable, but rather than ending on such a negative note there were a couple of
incidents that Rubruck was happy about. Rubruck personally warmed towards Jonas
shortly before he died. It must be remembered that this man was a Nestorian priest,
and up until now the Nestorians had not made a good impression on Rubruck. As the
priest was dying, several revealing factors came to light with regards to the Nestorian
practices.
Firstly, Jonas asked for the sacrament of Extreme Unction to be
administered, despite the fact that it was not part of the Nestorian tradition. Secondly,
the sacrament of confession was administered, this was part of the Nestorian tradition,
but it was not very widespread and finally the priest acknowledged the pope as the
‘father of all Christians.’86 Therefore, despite all of the differences between the
Nestorians and Rome, the Nestorians were able to offer the papacy one of the things
that most of the other Eastern Christian societies could not, that is the recognition of
the infallibility and charisma of the pope.
On another positive note, during the course of his journey Rubruck met groups of
people who did their best to help him. For example, Rubruck met a group of Alans
85
This was more likely to have been from poisoning, considering Sergius administered an unknown
brew to Jonas.
86
Rubruck, The Mission, ((XXX, 7), p. 218.
44
who brought him meat and although Rubruck commented that they were ignorant of
Christian rites, he did notice that they were eager to learn. This was a very different
from the response that he received from the Russians in 125387 when he had to
repeatedly ask for their help for ‘the common benefit of all Christians.’88
Rubruck’s experiences were far removed from the more favourable ones that John of
Plano Carpini and Andrew of Longjumeau had; however, there was thing all of the
reports did agree on and that was the character, personality and ambitious nature of
the rulers of the Eastern Christians and the universal disapproval of their society.
Nevertheless, back to the Eastern Christians, with all of these ghastly experiences, it is
easy to understand why Rubruck had such a negative impression of them, and
regrettably, for Rome and Rubruck, these are merely some of the unfortunate
encounters he had.
87
1253 was also the year that Daniel came to terms with the Mongols.
88
Rubruck, The Mission, (XV, 11), p. 110.
45
Conclusion
Carpini and Andrew of Longjumeau could not have had a more different experience
of the Eastern Christians the Rubruck did, even if they had tried. In 1247, as the early
missions were returning home the out look was positive, Andrew was bringing back
letters from schismatic Churches promising allegiance to the Holy see and Carpini
appeared to have succeeded in unifying the Russian Orthodox Church with Rome.
Conversely, Rubruck’s account brings us information about murdering, greedy,
heretical clergy who are poorly educated and prone to lying; even the Russians that
Rubruck met were disagreeable.
Questions may be asked as to why there was such a change in how the Eastern
Christians were perceived. It possibly has something to do with the timing of the
journeys, but probably has more to do with the people that each group met, which was
a result of the type of mission that each party was trying to accomplish. The earlier
missions were primarily fact-finding mission, attempting to ascertain the position of
the Mongols, geographically, politically and religiously, they were also trying to
communicate with the Eastern Churches with view to forming an anti-Mongol
alliance. However, Rubruck’s mission was solely religious in nature. News had
reached the West that Sartaq was a Christian, moreover, that there was a large
Christian community in Central Asia and Rubruck was going, in accordance with the
rules of his order, to preach. However, when he arrived in Central Asia, he found that
Sempad’s comment about the poor standard of priests, to be somewhat understated.
46
Moreover, there was a difference in the type of people that Carpini and Rubruck met.
Carpini met with heads of state, who had a political agenda and a façade to maintain.
On the other hand, Rubruck mainly met the grass roots of society. None of the
Nestorians that Rubruck met ranked above the level of a priest, and it appears that
each group that Rubruck encountered had a personal agenda, each vying for a
favourable position at court, and in some cases, particularly Sergius, at any expense.
It is also noticeable that Carpini’s report containing information regarding the Eastern
Christians is based wholly on his experiences with the Russian principalities and not
the Nestorians, who Rubruck found so abhorrent.
This may go some way to
explaining why the perception of the Eastern Christians changed so dramatically, in
the space of ten short years, from a positive hope of unifying them with the Church of
Rome, to realising that the Christians in Central Asia were corrupt and not the allies
Rome had so eagerly sought.
However, just so that this discussion does not finish on such a disappointing note,
here is the one really positive thing Rubruck managed to say about the Nestorians as a
group: ‘They (the Nestorians) for their part baptised on Easter Eve, in the most
methodical fashion, more than sixty persons – a source of great rejoicing in which all
the Christians shared.’89
89
Ibid, (XXX, 14), p. 216.
Word Count – 12, 273.
47
Appendices
The Mission of John of Plano Carpini and Benedict the Pole
1245
Carpini sent out with another Franciscan
brother, from Lyons. Went to Poland
where he met up with Benedict the Pole
at Vratislavia, modern day Breslau.
Visited King Wenceslas, given letter for
safe passage across Poland.
Visited King
Boleslav V.
Wenceslas’
nephew,
Met Conrad, Duke of Lenczy, whilst
with him the friars met up with Vasil’ko,
brother to Daniel, who took them to
Galich in Russia, where the first round of
negotiations took place, for the union
with Rome.
1246
3rd February (Purification of Our Lady)
Left Kiev
arrived at a town called Kaniev, met a
unco-operative Alan that would not
assist them any further until they had
given him some presents.
Monday after Quiquagesima
Taken as far as the first Tartar camp
First Friday after Ash Wednesday
Rushed upon by a group of Tartars
wanting to know who they were and
their business.
Following day set out a short distance,
stopped by the chief of men from the
camp and asked their business. Given an
escort as far as Corenza.
Monday after the first Sunday in Lent
26th February
Set out for Batu.
Travelled through the land of the
Comans, crossed the Rivers Dnieper and
Don.
i
Wednesday 4th April (Holy Week)
Reached Batu.
At Batu’s orda they meet Eljigidei, the
general who will send an embassy to
King Louis
Saturday 7th April (Holy Week)
Summoned to Batu’s orda. Informed
that they would have to travel on to
Güyük.
Easter Sunday, 8th April
Departure.
May 17th – June 16th
Travelled through the kingdom of the
Khorezm, called ‘the country of the
Bisermins’ by Carpini.
They came to lake Ala Kul.
28th June (Vigil of St. Peter)
Entered country of the Naimen, Carpini
calls them Pagans, but Rubruck identifies
them as Christian. Nestorian influences
were undoubtedly strong here.
On the Feast of the Apostle Peter and
Paul, the party experiences severe cold,
due to heavy snow fall.
22nd July
The party reached Güyük. The Tartars
were anxious that the party should arrive
in time for the election of the new Khan.
Noted that the horses on which they
travelled were changed several times a
day, so as to speed up the pace of the
journey.
Upon their arrival they were given tents
and provisions.
6 days later
Sent to Güyüks’ mother.
4 Weeks after their arrival
Election of Güyük.
St Martins Day
Summoned again, secretaries are most
concerned that the letter was properly
understood and the translation was exact.
13th November (Feast of St. Brice)
Given permission for departure.
ii
1247
Travelled through winter
25th May (Lord’s Ascension)
Reached Batu. Asked for Batu to reply
to the pope, but he declines the offer.
9th June (Octave of Pentecost)
Returned to where they had left their
servants.
Returned once more to Corenza, who
again asked for more gifts. He provided
them with tow Comans to escort them
back to Kiev
15 days before feast of John the Baptist
Arrived back at Kiev.
8 days
Stayed with Daniel and his brother
Vasilko.
On the return journey home they
travelled through Poland, Bohemia,
Germany, Liége and Champagne.
iii
The Mission of William of Rubruck
1253
13th Apr. (Palm Sunday)
Preached at St. Sophia, Constantinople.
7th May (Nones of May)
Arrived at the Black Sea.
21st May (12th kalends of June)
At Soldaia.
3rd June
Rubruck’s first meeting with the Mongols.
4th June
Arrival at Scacatai’s camp.
5th June (Octave of Ascension)
Handed over the letter from the Emperor of
Constantinople to Scacatai. Letter has to be sent
to Soldaia for translation, as no one could read
Greek.
7th June (Eve of Pentecost)
Visited by a group of Alans.
8th June (Pentecost)
Saracen wishing to be baptised, runs off after
saying he wished to consult his wife. This is the
shape of things to come for Rubruck.
9th June
Given a monk to escort the group to Sartaq.
C.20 June
Rubruck’s party reaches the banks of the River Don, he names it the
Tanis. They remain there for three days.
31st July (2nd kalends of August)
Reaches Sartaq’s camp. Interview with Coiac.
1st Aug. (St. Peter in Chains)
Summoned before Sartaq.
2nd Aug.
Informed of their dispatch to Batu, Sartaq’s
father. Depart the next day.
5th Aug.
Party arrives at the banks of the Volga. They
sail down the Volga to Batu’s headquarters; they
continue to travel down the left bank for five
weeks.
15th Aug.
Leave Batu and set out for Möngke’s camp.
26th/27th Sept.
Crossed the Ural River, now twelve days away
from the Volga.
31st Oct. (Eve of All Saints)
Entered Kenjek.
iv
19th Nov.
Arrived at Qayaligh, they spent twelve days
there.
2nd/3rd Dec.
Passed through the east of Ala Köl, which is
three days away from Boland. This is where
Rubruck learns that the German slaves, the
reason for his mission, are held.
6th Dec. (St. Nicholas’ Day)
Entered the high Mountains. This is the EmilQobuq region and the camp of the late Khan
Güyük.
27th Dec. (St. John the Evangelist)
Arrived at Möngke’s court.
28th Dec.
Interrogated.
29th Dec.
Met the Envoys from Nicaea.
1254
4th Jan. (Octave of the Innocents)
Rubruck’s first meeting with Möngke.
6th Jan. (Epiphany)
Date of Möngke’s supposed baptism.
12th Jan. (Day before Octave of Epiphany)
Moved into the quarters of the Armenian
monk, Sergius.
1st Mar. (First Sunday in Lent)
Sergius is rebuked by Möngke.
C.22nd Mar. (Mid Lent)
Master William’s son arrives at the court.
29th Mar. (Passion Sunday)
Möngke sets out for Qaraqorum.
5th Apr. (Palm Sunday)
Rubruck reaches the vicinity of Qaraqorum.
7th Apr.
The Friars remain at Qaraqorum, while Möngke
continues his journey.
9th Apr. (Maundy Thursday)
Rubruck celebrates mass at the Nestorians
baptistery.
12th Apr. (Easter Day)
Rubruck again has use of the Nestorian
baptistery. The Nestorians baptize 60 people.
17th May (Sunday before Ascension) They rejoin the court.
v
18th May
The monk, his entire household and Rubruck’s
party are summoned before Bulgai, the chief
secretary and judge. He wants to know their
purpose for being there, as the Khan has been
informed of Assassins in the vicinity, who are
there to kill him.
20th May
Visit to Möngke Khan’s dwelling.
22nd May (Day after Ascension)
Möngke sets out the visit his mother and Arigh
Böke.
30th May (Eve of Pentecost)
Debate wit the Muslims and the Buddhists.
31st May (Pentecost)
Rubruck’s final audience with Möngke.
7th June (Octave of Pentecost)
Möngke’s great formal reception at Qaraqorum.
8th July (Shortly after)
Rubruck departed Qaraqorum.
15th Sept. (Exaltation of the cross)
It takes over two months for them to reach
Batu’s camp, however, Rubruck does hear that
the Armenian King had passed by, towards the
end of July. By late August the party had wet up
with Sartaq again, he was on route to Möngke.
18th Oct. (fortnight before All Saints) Departed from Batu’s camp heading to Sarai,
they move south, down along the Etilia.
1st Nov. (All Saints)
Departed from Coiac’s father, close to Sarai.
Still heading in southerly direction.
11th Nov. (St. Martins)
Arrived at the mountain of the Alans.
12th Nov.
Arrived at the ‘Iron Gate’.
14th Nov.
Shābrān, called Samaron, by Rubruck.
15th Nov.
Walls of Alexander.
16th Nov.
Shamākhī, called Samag, by Rubruck.
17th Nov.
Entered the plain of Mūghān, called Mo’an by
Rubruck.
23rd Nov. (St. Clement)
Party began to travel uphill beside the Araxes,
this is known to the Muslim writers as the Aras.
They reached Baiju’s camp.
vi
Christmas
1255
13th Jan. (Octave of Epiphany)
Nakhchavan, called Naxuan by Rubruck.
Departed form Nakhchavan. Four days later
they arrived at the territory of Shahanshah,
called Sahensa by Rubruck.
2nd Feb. (Purification of the Virgin) Met up with a group of Dominican Friars.
14th Feb. (First Sunday in Lent)
Arrived in the territory of the Sultan of Rūm.
21st Feb. (Second Sunday in Lent)
Arrived at the headwaters of the Araxes, crossed
over the ridge of the mountains and found
themselves on the Euphrates.
28th Feb.
The party had been traveling down the
Euphrates for eight days, when they reached
Kamākh, called Camath by Rubruck. Once they
had left the river the party headed west.
21st – 27th Mar. (Holy Week)
In Sivas, called Sebaste by Rubruck, in Lesser
Armenia.
4th Apr. (Octave of Easter)
In Kayseri, named Caesarea-of-Cappadocia by
Rubruck.
18th Apr.
Reached Konya, named Yconium by Rubruck.
5th May
Arrived in Gorighos, called Curcus, by Rubruck.
Left here twelve days later.
16th June (8 Days before John the Baptist)
29th June (Sts. Peter and Paul)
Landed in Cyprus.
In Antioch.
15th Aug. (Assumption of the Blessed Virgin)
Chapter meeting in Tripoli.
vii
A Map of the Mongol Empire at the time of William of
Rubruck’s visit.
viii
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Andrew of Longjumeau, Abstract of Andrew of Longjumeau’s first mission, in:
Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, VI (Additamenta), (Royal Holloway, Course File)
Benedict the Pole, The Narrative of Benedict the Pole in: The Mission to Asia, ed. C.
Dawson (London, 1980)
Eljigidei, Letter in: Letter of Eudes de Châteauroux, Papal Legate, to Pope Innocent
IV, dated 31 March 1249: trans. From Latin text ed. In L. D’Achery, Spicilegium sive
collectio veterum aloquot scriptorum qui in Galliae bibliothecis delituerant, new
edition by Etienne Baluze, Edmond Martène and L.F.J. de la Barre (Paris, 1723, 3
vols), III, (Royal Holloway, Course File)
Innocent IV Two Bulls of Innocent IV Addressed to the Emperor of the Tartars in:
The Mission to Asia, ed. C. Dawson (London, 1980)
John of Plano Carpini, History of the Mongols in: The Mission to Asia, ed. C. Dawson
(London, 1980)
Sempad, Letter in: Letter of Eudes de Châteauroux, Papal Legate, to Pope Innocent
IV, dated 31 March 1249: trans. From Latin text ed. In L. D’Achery, Spicilegium sive
collectio veterum aloquot scriptorum qui in Galliae bibliothecis delituerant, new
edition by Etienne Baluze, Edmond Martène and L.F.J. de la Barre (Paris, 1723, 3
vols), III, (Royal Holloway, Course File)
Simon of Saint-Quentin, The narrative of Simon of Saint- Quentin, member of the
mission of Friar Ascelin to the Mongol general Baiju on behalf of Pope Innocent IV
(1248), in: Vincent de Beauvais, Speculum Historiale (c.1225), ed. Johann Mentelin
(Strassburg, 1473); extracts edited by Jean Richard, Simon Saint-Quentin. Histoire
des Tartares (Paris, 1965) p. 94 –117, (Royal Holloway, Course File)
William of Rubruck, The Mission of Friar William of Rubruck; His Journey to the
Court of the Great Khan Möngke 1253- 55, trans P. Jackson; ed. P. Jackson with D.
Morgan, (London, 1990)
Secondary Texts
Atiya, A.S. A History of Eastern Christianity, (London, 1968)
Brooke, R.B. The coming of the Friars, (London, 1975)
Gillman, I., Christians in Asia before 1550, (Michigan, 1990)
ix
Guzman, G.G., Simon of St. Quentin and the Dominican Mission to the Mongol Baiju:
a Reappraisal in: Speculum XLVI (1971) p.232 – 49.
Fennel, J., The Crisis of Medieval Russia, (Harlow, 1983)
Jackson, P., William of Rubruck in the Mongol Empire: Perception and Prejudices.
in: Travel Fact and Travel Fiction: Studies on Fiction, Literary Tradition, Scholarly
Discovery and Observation in Writing. Ed. Martels Z. von, (Leiden, New York, Köln,
1994)
Lawrence, C.H., The Friars: The Impact of the Early Mendicant Movement on
Western Society, (London and New York, 1994)
Lieu, S.N.C. Manichaeism in the later Roman Empire and Medieval China,
(Tübingen, 1992)
Moorman, J., A History of the Franciscan Order from its Origins to 1547, (Oxford,
1968)
Morris The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 – 1250, (Oxford, 1991)
Rachelwiltz, I. de, Papal Envoys to the Great Khans, (Stanford, 1971)
Runciman, S., The Eastern Schism: A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches
in the 11th and 13th Centuries, (Oxford, 1955)
Szczemiak, B., The Mission of Giovanni de Plano Carpini and Benedict the Pole of
Vratislava to Halicz in: The Journal of Ecclesiastical History (6), 1965.
Walker, W., A History of the Christian Church: A Study of the Papacy and the
Eastern Churches in the 11th and 12th Centuries, 4th Edition, (Edinburgh, 1986)
Ware, K., Eastern Christendom in: The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, ed.
J. McManners (Oxford, 1990)
Zatko, J.J., The Union of Suzdal: 1222- 52 in: The Journal of Ecclesiastical History,
(7), 1957.
The Map of the Mongol Empire
www.silk-road.com
x