Medieval Academy of America

Simon of Saint-Quentin and the Dominican Mission to the Mongol Baiju: A Reappraisal
Author(s): Gregory G. Guzman
Source: Speculum, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Apr., 1971), pp. 232-249
Published by: Medieval Academy of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2854853 .
Accessed: 07/02/2015 03:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Medieval Academy of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Speculum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 7 Feb 2015 03:03:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SIMON OF SAINT-QUENTIN AND
THE DOMINICAN MISSION TO THE
MONGOL BAIJU: A REAPPRAISAL
BY GREGORY G. GUZMAN
A BRIEF periodof directcontactbetweenFar Eastern and Westem Civilizations
occurredduringthe centuryfromapproximately1245 to 1345.1This interaction
was one of the resultsof the greatMongol conquestswhichbegan around 1200.
Priorto this,WesternChristendom was objectivelyignorantof the customsand
historyof Centraland East Asian nations,derivingits vague notionsof distant
peoples and places primarilyfromold fablesand legends.2Since the unityof the
vast and newly establishedMongol Empire encouragedtrade and travel and
made bothrelativelysafeforthosetributaryto theMongolsand forthosepossess-
ing safe conductsfromthem,Europe was able to meet Asia face to face.3
ChinggisKhan was the man who propelledthe Mongols into worldhistory.
A shrewdmilitaryadventurer,he soon conqueredand controlledall of the terri-
torybetweenNorth China and the Caucasus Mountains. He died of feverin
1227,and in keepingwithhis directions,his son Og6deiwas electedGreatKhan.
Og6dei establishedhis headquartersin the city of Karakorum and began to
organizehis conqueredterritories. He continuedto expand the Empire in the
West by defeatingthe Georgians,Armenians,and Seljuk Turks. This was fol-
lowedby a large-scaleattackon Russia and WesternEurope. Kiev was destroyed
in 1240, and at the Battle of Liegnitzon 9 April 1241, the Mongols defeateda
combinedarmyof Poles and Teutonic KnightsunderDuke HenryII of Silesia.
Liegnitz representsthe westernmostpoint of the Mongol advance, for this
northernunit soon turnedsouthwardto join forceswith the main armyunder
Batu in Hungary.The HungariansunderKing Bela IV had also been defeated
in Aprilof 1241. The Mongols could have continuedthe conquest,but hearing
of Ogodei'sdeath,theywithdrewfromEurope so that Batu and the otherchief-
tains could take part in the electionof a new Khan.4
WesternChristendomhad been spared as if by a miracle.However,Europe
was struckwithinexpressibleterrorat the Mongol invasion,especiallyby their
great numbersand remarkablespeed.6Europe was literallyin a state of shock.

1 Eileen Power,"The OpeningoftheLand Routes to Cathay," in Traveland Travellers oftheMiddle

Ages, ed. ArthurP. Newton (London, 19926),p. 1924.
2 Leonardo Olschki,Marco Polo's Precursors(Baltimore,1943), p. 1.
3 The unityofthe Mongol EmpirefacilitatedEast-West contactby removingall artificial barriers
betweenthe Yellow River and the Danube. See HenryYule, Cathayand theWay Thither,new ed.,
Henri Cordier(London, 1913-16), i, 155. Hereaftercited as Yule and Cordier,Cathay.
4This paragraphis a condensationofthe summariesofthe Mongol expansionand conquestsfound
in Yule and Cordier,Cathay,i, 146-154and in R. A. Skelton,T. E. Marston,and G. D. Painter,The
VinlandMap and the TartarRelation(New Haven, 1965), pp. 9.7-34.Hereaftercitedas Skelton,The
TartarRelation.
6 Matthew of Paris, ChronicaMajora, ed. Henry R. Luard, in RerumBritannicarum Medii Aevi
Scriptores(London, 1872-73), LVII (in seven parts), pt. iv, 77 and 109. See also Jean Richard,"The
232

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 7 Feb 2015 03:03:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SimonofSaint-Quentin 233
The Latin West fearedthat the Mongols would return,and since therewas no
unitedChristianforceto oppose them,thisanxietywas well founded.The Pope
and secularrulersofEurope appeared to be moreinterestedin theirpettywars,
jealousies,and intriguesthanin the Mongolthreat.6
In its fear and despair,Europe was encouragedby the fact that the Mongols
posed an equal threatto Islam. An undercurrent of hope and anticipationarose
that the Mongols were ripe for conversionto Christianity;7 this led the Latin
West to view them as natural allies against Islam.8 In fact, some optimistic
Europeans dreamedofusingtheMongolsto destroythefollowersofMohammed
and to liberatethe Holy City. These hopes had somefoundationforthe Mongol
hordeshad attacked and destroyedmany Muslim states in WesternAsia and
threatenedBaghdad itself.9The Mongols were tolerantof all creedsand cults;
the West also knew that theybelievedin only one god.'0Europe likewiseknew
that therewere largegroupsof NestorianChristiansthroughoutAsia. Many of
these Nestorians held high positions in the Mongol government,and many
oftheirwomenweremarriedto high-ranking Mongols.Added to theseencourag-
ing signswas the fact that the old legendsand storiesof PresterJohnwere still
verymuch accepted and believedin the West." In view of all thesefactors,the
missionswhich Pope Innocent IV sent to the Mongols appear as a realistic
approachto the situation.
The Pope, as the nominalleader ofEurope,feltobligatedto make some effort
to deliver Western Christianityfrom the Mongol scourge. Lacking military
might,the papacy could employonlydiplomacy;thus the papal effort consisted
ofsendingofficialenvoysto the Mongols.For theseembassies,thePope selected
membersof the recentlyestablishedmendicantorders.The friars,still aglow
withtheethosoftheirfounders, wereexperiencedin preachingand teaching,both
invaluable assets when about to meet infidels.They were known as intrepid
menwhosetrustin God could vergeon trueheroism.However,theircommission

Mongols and the Franks," in TheJournalofAsian History,iII (1969), 45-46. Hereaftercited as CM

and Richard,"Mongols and Franks."
6 The deep emnitybetweenthe Pope and EmperorFrederickII preventedany Christiancoopera-
tionagainsttheMongols.See Yule and Cordier,Cathay,i, 152-153,and Manuel Komroff, SomeCon-
temporaries ofMarco Polo (New York, 19928),xII-xv.
7 Yule and Cordier,Cathay,i, 154.
8 BertholdAltaner,Die Dominikanermission des 13. Jahrhunderts(Habelschwerdt,1924), p. 116.
9 The MongolsconqueredPersia in the 19230'sand it appearedthat theywould soon move against
Baghdad. Baghdad did not falluntil1258.
10Power,p. 1927.
11VincentofBeauvais, SpeculumHistoriale,JohannMentelinedition(Strasbourg,1473), xxx, 69.
Here Vincent,copyingfromSimonofSaiiit-Quentin, recordsthe popular rumorthat ChinggisKhan
marriedthe daughterof King David, son of PresterJohn,and that the motherof Ogodei Khan was
thus a Christian.This and the factorsmentionedabove led to numerousrumorsofthe Khan's immi-
nent conversion.See also Altaner,p. 1921,Yule and Cordier,Cathay,i, 154-155,and Power,p. 1927.
For thePresterJohnlegendin theearlythirteenth centuryconsultRichardHennig,TerraeIncognitae,
2nd,ed. (Leiden,1953),iii, 11-93.The Nestoriansand otherEasternChristiansare treatedin Francis
M. Rogers,The QuestforEasternChristians.Travelsand Rumorsin theAgeofDiscovery(Minneapolis,
1962).

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 7 Feb 2015 03:03:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
9234 Simonof Saint-Quentin
was limitedto simplycarryingdocuments;theywentout and returned,staying
withthe Mongolsonlylongenoughto deliverthe papal lettersand to receivean
answer.'2Nonetheless,it was the destinyof these envoys to provide Europe
withits firstreliableaccountofMongolpower,intentions, and customs.
These initialmissionsto the Mongolswere sent by Pope InnocentIV (1243-
1254) in 1245. Secondaryliteratureon the subject is not in agreementon the
numberof embassiesdispatched,but reliableprimarymaterial'3indicatesthat
Innocent IV commissionedfour separate delegationsin 1245.14Two of these
deputationswere entrustedto the Franciscans and two to the Dominicans.'6
The Franciscanmissionswere led by Lawrenceof Portugal and Johnof Plano
Carpini,whileAndrewofLongjumeauand Ascelin'6werein chargeoftheDomini-
can counterparts.
The Registerof Pope InnocentIV containsa letter,dated 5 March 1245, offi-
cially commissioning Lawrence of Portugal as a papal envoy to the Mongols.'7
However,some scholarsthinkthat Lawrencenever traveledto the Mongols.'8
Despite InnocentIV's lettercommissioning him as a Mongol envoy,thereis no
recordofLawrenceleavingor returning fromtheMongols;thereis no evidenceto
provethat he fulfilled his assignment.
The papal letterentrustedto the second Franciscanmissionis also foundin
the Registerof InnocentIV.'9 This letter,commissioning Johnof Plano Carpini
as a papal envoy,is dated 13 March 1245. Plano CarpinileftLyons on 16 April,

12 Power,p. 128.
13 The threeprimarysourcesthatwillbe used ratherextensively in the remainderofthisarticleare
Registre*d'InnocentIV, ed. hlieBerger (Paris, 1884-1921), CM, and Simon of Saint-Quentin,
HistoriaTartarorum, excerptsofwhichare preservedintermittently in Books xxx-xxxii ofVincentof
Beauvais' SpeculumHistoriale.All SpeculumHistorialereferences will be to the 1473 Strasbourgedi-
tionofJohannMentelin,as thisincunabularversionis consideredthemostreliableoftheearlyprinted
editions.See BertholdL. Ullman, "Classical Authorsin Certain Medieval Florilegia,"in Classical
Philology,xxvii (1932), 13, note 1,and Jean Richard,Simonde Saint-Quentin:Histoiredes Tartares
(Paris, 1965) p. 10. HereafterVincentofBeauvais willbe cited as SH, and Richard as HT.
14 The two mostrecentand detailedaccountsof thesemissionsstate that fourseparateembassies
weredischargedby Pope InnocentIV in 1245.See Altaner,pp. 52 and 122,and Paul Pelliot,"Les Mon-
3rd series,iv (1924), 270. The latterreference
gols et la Papaute," in Revuede l'Orientchr6tien, is part
of a seriesof threearticlesdealingwiththe Mongols and the Papacy that Pelliot publishedin Revue
de l'Orientchretien:the firstand thirdpartsare foundin iII (1922-23), 3-30 and viii (1931-32), 3-84.
Hereaftercited as MP.
1 Altaner,pp. 52 and 122, and MP, iv, 270.
16The properspellingofAscelin'sname is stillunderdebate. Mr Pelliot,MP, iv, 9285,thinksthat
the correctformofthisname is eitherAscelinor Anselme.Since he prefersthe formofAscelin,it will
be the formused throughoutthiswork.
17 Registres,i. No. 1364, and MonumentaGermaniaeHistorica;EpistolaeSaeculi XIII: E Regestis
Pontificum Romanorum, ed. Karl Rodenberg(Berlin,1887), ii, No. 102. HereafterRodenbergwillbe
cited as MGML,Ep. ii. The MGH editiongivesthe fullLatin textof the letter,while Registreshas
onlya suimmary of it.
18 Altaner,p. 124, and MP, iv, 234, and Richard,"Mongols and Franks," pp. 46-47; Richard ac-
cepts onlythe threemissionsof Plano Carpini,Andrewof Longjumeau,and Ascelin.
i, No. 1365, and MGO, Ep. ii, No. 105. Again onlyMGO gives the fullLatin Text.
19 Registres,

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 7 Feb 2015 03:03:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SimonofSaint-Quentin 235

124520 with Benedict the Pole as his companionand interpreter.2' These two
Franciscans traveled to the Great Khan in Mongolia via the overland route
throughPoland, Russia, and CentralAsia, and theyreturnedto InnocentIV in
Novemberof 1247 witha letterfromGuiyugKhan22whose enthronement they
had witnessedon 24 August1246.23
Since the Mongol hordes were advancing on the Holy Land as well as on
Europe, the crusade-conscious InnocentIV sent two Dominicanmissionsto the
Near East.24Unfortunatelythe papal Registerdoes not contain any written
authorizationor commissionfor either of these two Dominican embassies,25
so the exact dates oftheirdepartureand returnare unknown.But othersources26
providemore information about these two deputationswhichwere led by the
DominicansAndrewofLongjumeauand Ascelin.
Most secondaryliteratureon Andrewcontainsthe erroneousassumptionthat
he traveledto the Mongol camp as a companionof Ascelin,27 but the primary
sources which will be discussed shortlyprove conclusivelythat Andrew and
Ascelinwerenotmembersofthesame party.It willbe sufficient, forthemoment,
to say thatAndrewwas sentat the same timeas the otherthreeMongol envoys,
i.e. in early1245.28
Andrew'sembassyappears to have been both politicaland religious,as he re-
turnedwitha numberoflettersfromMuslimprincesin Syriaand fromtheleaders
of dissidentChristiangroupsin the Levant, fromthe Jacobitesand Nestorians
in particuliar. These letters,addressedto the Pope, are enteredin a groupin the
Register of Innocent IV forthe year 1246-1247,29 even thoughtheywerewritten
on different dates in 1245 and 1246. Paul Pelliot correctlyconcludesthat they
wereall broughtto thePope at thesame timeby theleaderofa missionreturning
20 JohnofPlano Carpini,YstoriaMongalorum, ed., Anastasiusvan den Wyngaert,in Sinica Fran-
ciscana (Quaracchi,1929), i, 8. This textis the mostrecentand only completeLatin editionof Car-
pini's account.Hereaftercited as YM.
in para-
21 Ibid., p. 28. Plano Carpinispeaks ofBenedictthe Pole as his companionand interpreter
graphthreeofhis Prologue.Carpini'soriginalcompanionwas Celaus ofBohemia,but he was incapaci-
tatedby illness.BenedictthePole joinedCarpiniin EasternEurope. See Skelton,The TartarRelation,
pp. 21, 35, note 5, and 36, and YM, p. 8.
22For the originalPersian versionof this letterfromGtiytigKhan, see MP, iII, 6-30. The best
Latin Versionis preservedin Salimbene,Cronica,ed. 0. Holder-Egger,in MonumentaGermaniae
Hi8torica,Scriptores(Berlin,1913), xxxii, 207-208.
23YM, pp. 9 and 119.
24 Altaner,p. 131.

25Ibid.,pp. 1924and 131.

26 The primarysourcesreferred to hereare SH and CM.
secondaryworksthat
27 Altaner,p. 129, and note 2. Here Altanerlistsat least fourteendifferent

erroneously make AndrewofLongjumeaua companionof Ascelin.Beforethe worksofAltaner and

Pelliot, only two othersrecognizedthat Andrew'smissionwas independentof that of Ascelin: i.e.,
AntoineTouron,Histoiredes hommesillustresde l'orderde Saint Dominique(Paris, 1748),i, 161-162,
and A. Rastoul, "Andre de Longiumeau," in Dictionnaired'histoireet de geographieecclesiastiques
(Paris, 1914), ii, 1679.
28 Altaner,pp. 53 and 129.
29 Registres, i, Nos. 3031-3039.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 7 Feb 2015 03:03:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
236 Simon of Saint-Quentin

fromthe Levant.30The writersof a numberof the lettersstate that they are

answeringpapal messages3'carriedto themby Dominicans.32 One of theseeven
mentionsa "Friar Andrew"by name.33Matthew of Paris confirms this deputa-
tion of Andrewby tellingof a Friar Andrewwho returnedto the Pope in 1247
afterbeing on an errandfor two years.34Paul Pelliot identifiesthis Friar as
AndrewofLongjumeau.35
Two primarysources confirmthe fact that Andrewwas sent specificallyto
the Mongols. Vincentof Beauvais recordsthat Andrewof Longjumeau recog-
nizedone ofthetwoMongol envoyssentto Louis IX ofFranceon Cyprusin 1248
because he had earlierseen him in the Mongol camp.36Matthew of Paris cor-
roboratesVincent's evidenceof Andrew'scontactwiththe Mongols by stating
thatFriarAndrewwas sentto theMongolking.37 Thus it is knownapproximately
whenAndrewleft,whenhe returned,and whomhe visitedon his mission.
The secondDominican delegationto the Mongolsin the Near East was under
the leadershipof Friar Ascelin. This is the most problematicaland least well
knownof the embassiesunderdiscussion.A major objectiveof this study is to
dispellthe aura of confusionand inaccuracieswhichsurroundthe historyof this
mission.
Simonof Saint-Quentin,one ofAscelin'scompanions,wrotea briefaccountof
the expedition,but Simon's recordhas been lost, except for those parts of it
that Vincent of Beauvais included in the last three books of his Speculum
Historiale.38The narrativeleftby Simon representsa historyof Ascelin's em-
bassy and is the onlyreliablerecordof it that exists.At best,Simon'sreportis a
sketchyaccount of the mission,but, nevertheless,it is the basic sourceforany
studyofAscelin'sjourney.All otherversionsare ultimatelyderivedfromit.
As indicatedin the precedingparagraph,Simon's accountis not as completea
recordof Ascelin's trip as historianswould desire.From a historian'spoint of
view,Simoncould be criticizedforfailingto give the routetraveledby the papal
envoyson theirway to and fromBaiju, the Mongol General.39However,addi-
tionalfacts,whichhelp to resolvesomeoftheuncertainties surrounding Ascelin's
30MP, IV, 231.
31 Registre*,
I, Nos. 3031-3035.
3 The Dominicansare specifically mentionedin Registres,I, Nos. 3031 and 3032.
I, No. 3035. This is the letterfromthe NestorianCatholicos,Rabbanata.
33Registres,
34CM, pt. vI, 113.
35MP, IV, 262.
36 S1, XXXII, 90.
37CM, pt. vI, 113.
38 JeanRichard,Simonde Saint-Quentin: an attempt
Hi8toire des Tartares(Paris, 1965), represents
to establishSimon's text. For a furtheranalysisof the Mongol materialin the SpeculumHistoriale,
see GregoryG. Guzman, Simon of Saint-Quentinand theDominicanMission to thte Mongols,T245-
1248 (unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,Universityof Cincinnati,1968).
89MP, iv, 303-306. Mr Pelliot argues that the correctspellingof the Mongol general'sname is
Bai6u (Baichu) as this is the formfavoredby the Armenianand Syriansources.He himselfuses the
MuslimformofBaiju as itis moreprevalent.Here theformBaiju willbe usedwithoutthediacriticas
thisis the acceptedEnglishtranscription forhistoricalwriting.In theLatin sources,the name usually
appears as Baiothnoyor Baiotnoy.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 7 Feb 2015 03:03:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SimonofSaint-Quentin 237

legation,can be ascertainedby a carefulanalysis of the data that Simon did

record.This workrepresentsan attemptto discusswhat can be knownpositively
fromthe primarysourcesconcerningAscelin'smission,i.e. its dates,its composi-
tion,its route,and its goals and accomplishments.
Beforelookingat someofthemoreintriguing facetsofthe report,the approxi-
mate dates of Ascelin's deputationmust be determined.This is no easy task
sincemost secondaryliteratureincorrectly dates the missionfrom1247 to 19250.
These erroneousdates were used by such influentialscholarsas C. R. Beazley
and W. W. Rockhill.40 This widespreaderrornecessitatesa returnto theprimary
sources.
The onlyexact dates givenby Simonare thosewhichrecordwhenAscelinand
his companionsarrivedin Baiju's camp and when theywere finallyallowed to
leave. Simon explicitlystates that the Dominicans arrivedin the Mongol army
camp on 24 May 1247.41The evidenceforthe date ofthe returnjourneyis some-
what involvedand perhapsit shouldbe tracedstep by step. Baiju finallyagreed
to allow the friarsto leave, and June24th was designatedas the day on which
the envoyswere to depart.1 However,threedays beforetheirscheduleddepar-
ture,Baiju receivedword of the imminentarrivalof an importantofficialfrom
theGreatKhan, so he postponedthedepartureofthefriarsuntilafterthearrival
of this imperialofficial.But this dignitarydid not arriveimmediately.While
waiting,Ascelin,who was eager to catch the fall passage back to the West,
bribeda high-ranking Mongoladvisorto petitionBaiju foran answerto thepapal
lettersand forpermissionto leave.43Baiju agreed,but on the day on whichthey
were to leave, 17 Julythe Khan's officialfinallyarrived.The departureof the
friarswas again postponed.Aftersevendays ofcelebrating,the Mongolsallowed
the sufferingenvoysto leave on the eighthday, 25 July.Withthemthe Domini-
cans carriedBaiju's answerto the papal letters;this letterwas dated 20 July.44
Thus Ascelin'smissionspentnineweeksin theMongol armycamp,from24 May
1247 to 25 July 1247.0 These nine weeks representthe only specificand exact
dates that Simonrecordsconcerning Ascelin'strip.
Less preciselyrecordedis the date for the commissioningof this Mongol
embassy.VincentofBeauvais statesindirectly thatAscelinwas sentto theMon-
golsby thePope in 1245.46His firstallusionto time,...... hoc etiamtempore...

40 C. R. Beazley, TheDawn ofModernGeography (London, 1897-1906),iI, 227; the same erroralso

appears in The Textsand VersionsofJohnof Plano Carpiniand Williamde Rubruquis,trans.and ed.
C. R. Beazley (London, 1903), 269-270. See also The Journeyof William Rubruck,trans. and ed.
W. W. Rockhill(London, 1900), xxiv-xxv, and MP, iv, 270.
41 SH, xxxii, 40. These dates are givenby Simonin termsofthe Church's liturgicalcalendar,i.e.
in termsofthe saints'feastcelebratedon thatday. These liturgicaldates can readilybe changedinto
exact calendardates.
42 S1, xxxIi, 49.

43 SH, xxxn, 50.

44 SF, xxxii, 51. See also MP, IV, 825-326.
46 SH, xxxiI, 48.
41 SH, xxxii, 2.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 7 Feb 2015 03:03:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
238 SimonofSaint-Quentin
obviouslyrefersto the year 1245 givenin the precedingchapter,but thereis no
indicationas to the monthand the day of departure.Vincent'ssecondreference
to time,". . . eo tempore.. ." is morehelpfulas it alludes to the departuredate
ofPlano Carpini.Since Carpiniwas commissioned on 13 March 1245,and sincehe
leftLyonson 16 April1245,thedate ofAscelin'sdeparturecan be narroweddown
to the earlypart of the year 1245, possiblyto the same monthsof March and
April.
Thus Ascelinleft sometimeearly in 1245, but the exact monthin whichhe
departed is not recorded.An argumentto help pinpointthe startingdate of
Ascelin'slegationmorepreciselycan be made fromthe orderin whichVincent
recordsthese two events.47Since the notice of Ascelin's trip precedes that of
Carpini,it can be arguedthatAscelinleftpriorto Carpini'sdeparture.This view
is furtherstrengthenedwhen one recalls that Vincent faithfullyadhered to
chronologyover all other considerations.48 On the otherhand, it must be re-
memberedthat Carpiniwas a FranciscanwhileVincentand Ascelinwere both
Dominicans. Since both missionsleftat approximatelythe same time,Vincent
mighthave placed thenoticeoftheDominicandeparturefirstout ofdeferenceto
hisownorder.49 Because ofthegrowingrivalrybetweenthetwomendicantorders,
is
this a veryreal possibility.Supportingthisview is the fact that Vincentuses
Carpini'snarrativeto supplementthat of Simon.50One would ordinarilyexpect
that a missionto the Great Khan himselfwould take precedenceover one to a
Mongol armygeneral;thusone would normallyexpectSimon's accountto com-
plementthat of Carpini.In this instance,Vincent'sprobablepreference forhis
own order tends to neutralizehis usually reliable chronology.But regardless
of who leftfirst,both Ascelinand Carpinidepartedat approximatelythe same
timein early1245.
In addition to not reportingthe date of Ascelin's embarkation,Simon also
neglectsto recordthe date of his returnto the Pope. But, fortunately forhis-
torians,Simondoes recordthelengthoftimeAscelinspenton his papal mission;
he reportsthat Ascelinhad been gone forthreeyears and seven monthsbefore
he returnedto thePope.5"Since it is knownthatAscelinleftin early1245,possibly
in March or April,and that he was gone forthreeyears and seven months,the
approximatedate of his returncan be determinedby simplemathematics.This
places Ascelin's returnto Innocent IV in the autumn of 1248, most likelyin
Septemberor October.This approximatedate is, in turn,confirmed by two other
independentprimarysources.
In his ChronicaMajora, Matthewof Paris recordsthat the Pope receivedtwo
Mongol envoysin the summerof 1248.52His use ofthe word"summer"does not

48 SI,
XbXId, 25. HereVincent
openlystatesthathis materialwillbe arrangedin chronologicaland
thentopicalorder.
49MP, iv, 282.
60 SI, xxxii, 2 and 25.
61SH, xXmI, 50.
62 CM _
pt. v, 7

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 7 Feb 2015 03:03:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SimonofSaint-Quentin 239
negatetheaboveearlyautumn(September-October) dateofAscelin'sreturn,as
MatthewofParisis notprecisein recording thechronology withina year.On
theotherhand,he is veryreliablein regardto placingeventswithintheproper
year.53Matthewof Paris does not connecttheseMongoldelegateswithany
particularmission, but Simonexpressly recordsthatBaiju senttwoenvoysto
thePopewithAscelin.54 ThenamesofthesetwoMongolambassadors, Aibegand
andSargis,aregiveninBaiju'slettertothePope.55
The twoMongolenvoysarealso associatedwithAscelin'sexpedition because
he was theonlypapal emissary whoagreedto takeMongoldelegatesbackwith
him.The Franciscans, Plano Carpiniand Williamof Rubruck,who traveled
somewhat later,bothrefused to do this.Carpiniwentintogreatdetail,giving
fiveseparatereasonswhyhe opposedthisseemingly innocuousact ofcourtesy.58
Williamof Rubruckalso rejectedthe Mongolattemptsto pressurehiminto
acceptingenvoys.57 Obviously,Ascelindid not sharetheirfearof introducing
spiesto the West,as he acceptedBaiju's ambassadors withoutany recorded
protest.
MatthewofParisalso statesthatthetwoMongolenvoyscarriedletterswith
themthathadbeentranslated threetimesfroman unknown idiomintoa known
language.58 This is thesameprocess,butin reverse, usedto translatethepapal
fromLatinto MongolinBaiju's camp.59
letters
BesidesMatthewofParis,theRegister ofInnocentIV alsoconfirmsthatAsce-
lin returned to the Pope in the earlyautumn(September-October) of 1248.
The Register containsa letteraddressedto Baiju dated 292November1248.60
In thisletterInnocentIV says that he receivedBaiju's envoysgraciously;
thisis one moreproofthatthetwoMongoldelegatesmentioned by Matthew
ofPariswerethetwothatAscelinbrought withhimfromBaiju. Thisletterto
Baiju is convincing proofthatAscelinreturned before22 November1248.It is
also probablethat InnocentIV did not answerBaiju immediately, that he
took timeto formulate his returnlettercarefully.A returnletterdated 22
November supports thedateofSeptember-October verywell.
6aRichardVaughan,MatthewofParis (Cambridge,1958), p. 186.
54 SI, XXXII, 49-51.
55SI1, xxxii, 51. Paul Pelliotsays that neitherwas a Mongol; see MP, iv, 327. He maintainsthat
sinceAibegis a Turkishname,he was one ofthe manyTurksemployedin theMongoladministration.
Sargiswas certainlya Christian,probablya Nestorian,accordingto Mr Pelliot.
6 S, xxxii, 28, and YM, p. 125.
67 William of Rubruck,Itinerarium,ed. Anastasius van den Wyngaert,in Sinica Franci8cana
(Quaracchi,1929),i, 293 and 298-299; thisis the mostrecenttextofRubruck'sjourneyto the Great
Khan in Karakorum.The standardEnglishtranslationwas in TheJourneyofWilliamRubrucktothe
Eastern Parts of the World,1253-55, trans. and ed. W. W. RockhilU(London, 1900); however,
RockhiUi has been supersededby the morerecenttranslationin TheMongolMi8sion,trans.by a nun
ofStanbrookAbbeyand ed. by Christopher Dawson (New York, 1955), pp. 89-220. Hereaftercited
as Itinerarium and Dawson, The-Mongol Mi8sion.
58 CM, pt. v, 37. The unknownidiom was presumablyMongol; the letterswere then translated

intoPersianand finallyintoLatin.
59 SH, xxgi, 47.
60 Registre8,
II, No. 4682,containsthefullLatin textofthisletter.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 7 Feb 2015 03:03:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
240 SimonofSaint-Quentin
The precedingdiscussionhas shownthat the exact day and monthofAscelin's
departureand returncan not be determined.But the preciseday and monthare
not essentialto datingthemission.It is notnecessaryto knowpositivelywhether
Ascelinleftin March of 1245 and returnedin Septemberof 1248 or leftin April
of 1245 and returnedin Octoberof 1248. The importantpoint is the fact that
primarysources clearly indicate that Ascelin positivelyleft in early (March-
April) 1245 and that he returnedin earlyautumn (September-October) of 1248.
The second problemis the compositionof Ascelin'sembassy.Here again the
secondaryliteratureconfusesthe issue by making Andrewof Longjumeau a
memberof Ascelin'smission;6" but thereis no evidencein the primarysourcesto
supportthis view. Toward the end of his account,Simon of Saint-Quentinlists
the names of those who accompaniedAscelin.62The fivefriarsmentionedare
Ascelin,Alexander,Albertus,Simon of Saint-Quentinand Guichardusof Cre-
mona.Beside theirnames,Simonalso givesthelengthoftimeeach friarspentas a
memberof the mission.He recordsthat Ascelinwas gone for threeyears and
seven monthsbeforehe returnedto the Pope, that Alexanderand Albertus
werewithAscelinabout threeyears,that Simon spenttwo years and six weeks
on the trip,and that Guicharduswas withthemforfivemonths.
The factthat themembersof the legationwereassociatedwithit fordifferent
lengthsoftimeindicatesthat Ascelinalone was commissioned by Pope Innocent
IV to go to the Mongols and that he pickedup his companionsin the Levant as
he went along.63Vincentof Beauvais confirms this by sayingthat InnocentIV
sent Ascelin to the Mongol army with apostolic lettersand with three other
friarsfromdifferent Dominicanhouses.64In the same sentence,earlymanuscript
copies of the Speculum Historiale contain the phrase ". . . auctoritate qua
fungebatur... ."; this clearlyrefersto the authorityentrustedto Ascelin since
fungebatur is in thesingular.66
Also to be taken into considerationhereis thefact
that in listingthe names of the membersof the missionand the lengthof time
each spenton it, Simonadds the phrase,"beforehe returnedto the Pope," only
afterthenameofAscelin.66 This clause impliesthatonlyAscelinreportedback to
61 Altaner,p. 129,note2. Alsosee note27.
62 SH, xxxi, 50.
63 Altaner,pp. 80 and 125,and MP, iv, 293-294.
64 SF, xxxii, 2.

66 In MP, iv, 292-295,Mr Pelliot,discussingall of the implicationsoffungebatur,claimsthat the

singularformis more correctthan the pluralfungebantur whichthe incunabulareditionscontain.
An inspectionof the Cambronmanuscriptof the SpeculumHi8toriale,dated about 1280, confirms
Pelliot's contentionas it containsthe singularfungebatur - indicatingthat Ascelin alone received
the papal commission.For furtherinformation on the Cambron manuscript,see Supplementto the
Census of Medieval and RenaissanceManuscriptsin theUnitedStatesand Canada, ed. W. H. Bond
(New York, 1962),p. 300,JohnParker,TheJamesFordBell Collection.AList ofAddition3, 1955-1959
(Minneapolis,1961), p. 3, and GregoryG. Guzman, "The CambronManuscriptof the Speculum
Historiale,"Manuscripta,xii (1969), 95-104. The Cambronmanuscriptis currentlylocated in the
JamesFord Bell Collectionat theUniversityofMinnesota.
6 SE, xxXiI, 50, reads, "Et Frater quidem Ascelinusin via illa tota moratusest per annos tres
ac septem menses,antequam ad dominumpapam rediret.Frater Alexander et Frater Albertus
fueruntcum eo per annus trespaulo minos,Frater Simonper duos annos et septimanassex, Frater
Guichardusqui assumptusest Tiflisper quinque menses."

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 7 Feb 2015 03:03:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SimonofSaint-Quentin 241
InnocentIV because he alone had receivedpapal authorityforthe errand.The
othersprobablyremainedin theHoly Land.
AlthoughSimonrecordsthenamesofthe fivefriarswho tookpart in Ascelin's
delegation,several otherreferencesin his account indicatethat onlyfourwere
officialenvoys.The Mongols apparentlyrecognizedonly fouras officialrepre-
sentatives;thisis evidentfromdisagreements betweenBaiju and his counselors
as to the appropriatepunishmentforthe papal emissaries.67 Contraryto Baiju's
proposal,one advisoropposedkillingall ofthepapal delegates;he favoredkilling
two and sendingthe othertwo back to the Pope. Anotheradvisorwantedto kill
two friarsimmediatelyand save the othertwo as prisonersor hostagesuntilthe
Franks,who allegedlywerefollowingthem,shouldarrive.68 When Simonrecords
the translatingof the papal lettersinto Mongol, he again indicatesthat there
were only four officialenvoys.69The finalmentionof only four officialpapal
agents is found in Vincent's editorialcomment.70 In the chapter in which he
statesthathe is fusingtheaccountsofSimonand Plano Carpini,Vincentremarks
thatAscelinhad beenaccompaniedby threeotherfriarsfromdifferent Dominican
houses.
Whilethe sourcesdo not specifywhichof the fivefriarswas not an officialen-
voy,it is mostreasonableto assumethat GuichardusofCremonawas theone not
includedin the officialcount.The mostobviousreasonforexcludingGuichardus
is thefactthathe was presentforonlyfivemonthscomparedto a twoyear min-
imumforthe otherfourmembers.Whilelistingthefivemembersoftheembassy,
Simonrecordsthat Guichardusjoined the othersin Tiflis.7" Since Simondid not
mentionwhere the other threefriarsassociated themselveswith Ascelin, the
referenceto Tiflis in the case of Guichardussets him offfromthe rest. Thus
Guicharduswas considereda late-comerby Simon, even thoughhe knew the
Mongol customsand habitsbetterthan the otherfourfriarsbecause he had lived
in Tiflisforseven years.72
Simonexplicitlynamesthefivefriarsand thelengthoftimeeach was associated
with the legation.Andrewof Longjumeau is not included in this list. Simon
countedGuichardus,althoughhe joined thepartyat a laterdate. On thebasis of
this,it is reasonableto assume that ifAndrewhad been part of Ascelin'sgroup,
even fora shortlengthof time,he would have been includedin Simon's tally.
Anotherfactorwhichsupportsthe view that Andrewwas not part ofAscelin's

67 SH, xxxii, 44. The Dominican Friars had been condemnedto death because theyhad refused

to genuflectbeforeBaiju and because theymaintainedthat the Pope was greaterthan the Khan.
Baiju's advisorsthen suggestedvariousways to executethe condemnedfriars.See also page 249.
6 The termFranks can refereitherto the crusadeof Louis IX of France or to the Frankishmer-
cenarieswho were fighting in the armies of the Sultan of Iconium. See note 88, and Jean Richard,
"An Account of the Battle of Hattin Referringto the FrankishMercenariesin OrientalMoslem
States," in SPECULUM, xxvii (1952), 171-175. Hereaftercited as Richard,"FrankishMercenaries."
69Sh, xxxii, 47. The lettersofthe papal envoyswerenaturallywrittenin Latin. From Latin, the
lettersweretranslatedintoPersian'andthenintoMongol.
70 SH, XXXII, 2.
71SH, xxxi, 50.
72SH, xii, 492.See also MP, xv,294.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 7 Feb 2015 03:03:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
242 Simon ofSaint-Quentin
delegationis Andrew'sreturnto thePope in Lyonsin 1247;73i.e., at thetimewhen
the Dominicanswere still in Asia Minor. If Andrewhad been part of Ascelin's
mission,he would have been in Baiju's camp with themin 1247, not in Lyons
withthe Pope.
There has also been disagreementregardingthe locationof the Mongol camp
visited by Ascelin and Andrew.Simon recordsthat the army camp of Baiju
was located fifty-ninedays travel fromAcre.74Matthew of Paris reportsthat
Andrewfound his Mongols forty-five days beyond Acre.75Thus it is obvious
that Ascelinand Andrewdid not visitthe same Mongol camp at the same time,
even though it is very probable that both friarsvisited the Mongol general
Baiju. The fourteenday traveldifference may representthe difference between
the Mongol summerand wintercamps; Ascelinwas in Baiju's camp in summer,
but since thereis no indicationof when Andrewwas in the Mongol camp, this
explanationis onlya hypothesis.
The numberof associates attributedto Ascelinand Andrewalso prove that
each led an independentlegation.As indicatedabove, Ascelinwas accompanied
by fourotherfriars,althoughGuicharduswas not an official envoy.Two primary
sourcesrecordthat Andrewhad onlyone otherfriaras a companion.One of the
letterscarriedto the Pope by Andrew,that of the NestorianCatholicos,Rab-
banata, clearlystatesthat papal documentswerecarriedto him by Andrewand
his companion.76Matthew of Paris confirms thisby recordingthat Andrewand
anotherDominican retumedto Lyons in 1247.7 The centralpoint is the fact
that both sourcesattributeonlyone companionto Andrew.Thus Ascelin'sfive-
man missionis obviouslydifferent fromand independentof Andrew'stwo-man
delegation.
The thirdaspect of Ascelin'sembassythat will be discussedhere is, in many
ways, the most problematical.The questionof Ascelin'sitineraryhas provoked
muchdiscussion,but no acceptableanswershave been forthcoming. In his study
of Ascelin's round-tripitinerary,Paul Pelliot has rejectedthe various theories
formulatedso far,but does not offeran altemate regardingthe routetaken by
the mission.78
AscelinleftLyons in early(March-April)1245,but he did not arrivein Baiju's
camp until24 May 1247. The cruxof the probleminvolvesthe long timelapse

73 CM,pt. VI, 113. The seriesoflettersfromthe Syrianprincesand dissidentChristiansare entered

as a groupin InnocentIV's Register forthe year 1246-47; this provesthat Andrewreturnedto the
Pope in 1247.
7 SH, xxiI, 50. Unfortunately, Simondoes notgivetherouteofthisfifty-nine day trip.
76 CM, pt. VI, 116. Matthew of Paris breaksdownhis forty-five day tripintosmallerunits,saying
that it tookten days to go fromAcreto Antioch,two days fromAntiochto Aleppo,sixteendays from
Aleppo to Mosul, and seventeendays fromMosul to Rabbanata. Since Rabbanata was at Tauris,
theseventeendays undoubtedlyrepresents thedistancebetweenMosul and Tauris.
76MGH,Ep. II, No. 268. Line 22 on page 200 reads,"... Andreaset sociuseius . . ."
77 CM, pt. VI, 113. Here Matthew of Paris reads, "Praeterea fraterAndreaset alius Praedicator

nuperveneruntLugdunum. . . "
78 IP, iv, 295-308- and 327-330.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 7 Feb 2015 03:03:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Simon of Saint-Quentin 243
between hisdeparture and hisarrivalin theMongolarmycamp.WhereAscelin
wentand whathe did duringthosetwoyearshas neverbeenadequatelyex-
plained.It is extremely to providepreciseanswersto thesequestions
difficult
becauseofthelackofinformation concerning therouteand itinerary followed.
A careful analysisoftheIlistoriaTartarorum willperhapsdetermine theroute
takenbyAscelin.Thebestthatcanbe doneunderthecircumstances istoidentify
thoseplaceswhichAscelinand hiscompanions positivelyvisitedin theirtravels
in theNear East. By pinpointing thelocationsthrough whichtheDominican
friarspassed,varioustravelpatternswillrevealthemselves. The itinerary of
Ascelincannotbe positively identified by thismethod, butit can suggestsome
probableroutes.
SimonstatesthatAscelinandhisassociateswereunderMongoldominion for
oneyear;thisincludedtraveling withinMongolterritory, theirstaywiththem,
and theirreturn trip.79Theyspenttwomonthsofthistimein Baiju's camp,so
onlytenmonthswerespentin traveling through the territories
controlled by
theMongols.But unfortunately thistimescheduleis not veryhelpfulin de-
termining theroutetraveledbyAscelin'smissionbecauseitspace is notknown.
Aftermentioning the timespentin areas subjectto Mongoloverlordship,
Simonrecordshisonlyreference to travelroutes.His oneshortsentence reads,
"Thereare,as theysay,fifty-nine days travelfrom Acreto that Mongol army
in Persia."80 Fromtheimpersonal way thatit is stated,thisreference appears
to be a casual,objectivereckoning of distanceratherthanthe specificroute
traveledby thepapal envoys.Simonappearsto be givingthisfigure morewith
theintention ofindicating thelocationoftheMongolarmycampthanrecording
therouteofthefriars. Moreover, ifit had takentheDominicans fifty-ninedays
to travelfromtheMongolcampto Acre,Simonprobably wouldhavebeenless
objectiveand impersonal in recording it; he wouldcertainly have leftout the,
"as theysay,"'"phrase.In thepreceding sentencein theLatintext,Simonre-
cordedthenamesandlengthoftimethateachfriarspenton thispapalmission;
inthishewasveryprecise.AlsoinfavoroftheviewthathereSimonwassimply
recording thelocationofBaiju's campratherthanthefriars'actualtraveltime
is thefactthatthesentence reads,"fromAcreto thatMongolarmyin Persia."9
Had theDominicans spentthosefifty-nine daysontheirreturn trip,Simonwould
undoubtedly have said,"fromtheMongolarmyin Persiato Acre,"indicating
thatthiswouldhavebeenthedirection takenbythefriars.
It can be positivelystatedthatAscelin'smissionpassedthrough thecityof
Tiflisin Georgia.Simonrecordsin no uncertain termsthatGuichardus ofCre-
monajoinedtheexpedition at Tiflisand thathe was familiar withtheMongol
customsand habitssincehe had livedin thatcityforsevenyears.82
Simon'saccountcontainsampleevidenceto showthatAscelin'sdelegation
79 SH, xxxii, 50.
80 Ibid. In Latin the sentencereads, "Sunt autem ut dicunt,ab Acon usque ad exercitumillum
TartaroruminPersideLIX dietae."
81 MP, iv, 328. P. Pelliot considersthe, "as theysay," phrasean additionof VincentofBeauvais.
81See page 241.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 7 Feb 2015 03:03:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
244 Simon ofSaint-Quentin
spentnineweeksin theterritory ofSitiens.83Paul PelliotthinksthatSitiensis
Sisianin GreaterArmenia, but cautiously concludesthatBaiju's campwas in
theeasternpartof theTranscaucasus, northof theAraxesRiverand east of
Lake Gokca.84 Thus the generalvicinityoftheMongolcampcan be approxi-
mated,eveniftheexactspotcannotbe positively identified.
Ascelin'sembassyalso visitedthecityofTaurisin GreaterArmenia.85 This
wasthehomeofRabbanata,theNestorian Catholicos, towhomtheDominicans
carriedpapal letters.Simonimpliesthatthe friarshad a hardtimelocating
Rabbanata;hewasfinally foundhidinginTauris.LikeTiflis,thelocationofthis
citypresentsno problems.
In his HistoriaTartarorum,Simonindicatesindirectly thatAscelinand his
companions passedthrough CentralTurkey.86 Thereis a briefreference
bySimon
tothefactthattheMongolswerefilledwithfearwhentheDominicans, whohad
beensentto themby thePope, arrivedin theircamp.The Mongolcampwas
alivewiththerumor thatFrankswerefollowing thefriars,thattheywerenowin
CentralTurkey.SincetheMongolsfearedtheFranksmorethananyotherpeo-
ple,87
theassociationofthepapalenvoyswiththeFrankish threatmayhavebeen
partofthereasonforthecoolreception theMongolsgaveAscelinand hiscom-
panions.That the Mongolscontinued to associatethe Dominicanfriarswith
theFranksis provenbythefactthatlateroneofBaiju's advisorsrecommended
twooftheenvoysimmediately
killing andsavingtheothertwountiltheFranks
whofollowed themwouldarrive.88 The Franks,whoweresupposedly following
thepapal delegates, placed in CentralTurkeyby Simon.This
are specifically
stronglyindicates,
but doesnot conclusively prove,thatAscelinand his com-
panionshad also passedthrough CentralTurkeyon theirwayto Baiju's camp.
Anotherreference by Simonlocatesthemembers ofAscelin'smissionin the
cityofSebastein Turkey.89 Afterdiscussing thetermsoftheMongol-Turkish
Treatyof1245,Simonrecordsthatit costtheTurksofIconium60,000Byzan-
tinebezantsto providefortheMongolagentsduringthefirst twoyearsthatthe
treatywas in effect.A similarassessment of tributewas made at Sebasteby
Constantine,therulerofLampronandmarshalofall Turkey.A soldierofCon-
stantine,by thenameofProvengal,90 whohad livedin Sebastesincethe 1245

83 SH, xxxii, 40-52.

84 MP, IV, 300-302,and viii, 11. On his returntripin 1254-55,WilliamofRubrucklocatesBaiju's

camp nearthe AraxesRiver;see Itinerarium, p. 320,and Dawson, TheMongolMission,p. 212.

"I SH, xxx, 70.
86SH, xxx, 87.
87 SH, xxx, 87, and xxxii, 41.
88 SH, xxxii, 44. Their fearof the Franks also led the Mongols to questionAscelinand his com-

panions carefullyas to whetheror not manyFranks had been ferriedover to Syria as one of their
merchantsreported.See also SH, xxxii, 41. The Mongolshad obviouslyheardofLouis IX ofFrance's
Crusade.
89 SH, xxXiI,28. Sebaste is themoderncityofSivas.
90This soldierwas probablygiventhisname because he was a Frankishmercenary fromProvence.
For moreinformation on Frankishmercenariesin the Levant, see Richard,"FrankishMercenaries,"
pp. 171-175.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 7 Feb 2015 03:03:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Simon ofSaint-Quentin 245

treaty,passedthisinformation to thepapal envoyson theirwayto theMon-

gols.Thus SimonagainlocatestheembassyofAscelinin Turkey,in thenorth-
easternpartofthatcountry.
Havingidentified theplaceswhichAscelin'sexpedition definitely
visited,it is
nowpossibleto drawup itstentative routeto andfromtheMongolarmycamp.
The method,whichadmittedly leavesmuchto be desired, consistsbasicallyof
drawinglinesbetweenthevariouslocationsthrough whichthemissionpassed.
Ascelinprobablydisembarked at Acre,as did nearlyall travelers between
Europeand the Levant.9'But wherehe wentand whathe did immediately
thereafteris notknown.CentralTurkeywas positively visitedby Ascelinand
hiscompanions according to Simon'saccount.Unfortunately, Ascelin'sitinerary
between Acreand CentralTurkeyandthereasons whyAscelin'sgroupproceeded
totheMongolsinsucha round-about wayarenotrecorded intheSimonexcerpts
in theSpeculumHistoriale.92 Paul Pelliothas a veryplausiblesuggestion as to
whatmighthave happenedto thepapal envoysafterarriving at Acre,but it
mustbe remembered thatthereis no evidenceforthistheory.93 Pelliotsuggests
that,likeFriarAndrew, Ascelinandhiscompanions spenta longtimewandering
through theMuslimprincipalities in orderto reachtheterritorycontrolled by
theMongols.94 Disgustedand discouraged, Ascelinthenprobablydecidedto go
North,95hopingthathecouldcrossoverto theMongolsvia Turkey, Armenia, or
Georgia.This explanation ofwhyAscelintraveledthrough Turkey,Armenia,
and Georgiais plausible,eventhoughthereis no concrete evidencethathe was
hinderedbytheMuslims.
Ascelin'snorthernrouteledhimto CentralTurkey;fromthere,he apparently
travelednortheastas Simonreports thattheenvoysdefinitelypassedthrough the
91MP, iv, 297. Mr Pelliothastensto add that Ascelin'sdisembarkationat Acre is not knownposi-
tively,even if it is veryprobable.Acre was the headquartersof the secondDominican provincein
the Holy Land; see FrangoisBalme, "La provinceDominicainede Terre-Saintede janvier 1277 A
octobre1280" in Revuede l'OrientLatin, i (1893), 528, note 1. Altaner,p. 80, claims that Ascelin
definitely landedat Acre,but thereis no evidenceto supportsucha positivestatement.
92 Since Simonwas withAscelin'smissionforonlya littleovertwo years,it is veryprobablethat
he was not a memberof the groupduringthis earlyperiod.This would accountforwhyhe records
nothingabouttheearlydays ofthetrip.
93MP, iv, 233-236and 297-298.
94 The letterof Al-Mansur,the Prince of Edessa, which Andrewof Longjumeau carriedto the

Pope specifically mentionedthat the Muslimsdid not permitAndrewto cross over to the Mongols.
This letteris summarizedin Registres, i, No. 3031; the completeLatin text can be foundin Caesar
Baronius and OdoricusRaynaldus,Annales Ecclesiastici,ed. in part by J. D. Mansi (Lucca, 1747),
xx, 389-390.
95Since the Muslimscontrolledthe area Northof Acre,betweenHoms and Jabala, Ascelinwould
have had to crossthroughtheseMuslimterritories ifhe traveledby land; see Map No. 19 in A History
of theCrusades,editor-in-chief,KennethM. Setton,2nd ed. (Madison, 1969), ii, 556, Ascelincould
have been delayed in his passage throughthese Muslim territories if he took the land route. Less
likely,but verypossible,ifthe factthatAscelinmighthave taken a shipfromAcreto LesserArmenia
as Marco Polo did a fewdecadeslater.See A. C. Moule and P. Pelliot,edd., Marco Polo: TheDescrip-
tionoftheWorld(London, 1938), i,. 83; see also the maps facingpages 1 and 22 in vol. i of The Book
of Ser Marco Polo, trans.and ed., Sir HenryYule, 3rd ed. rev. by Henri Cordier(New York, 1926).
Hereaftercitea as Moule and Pelliot,MarcoPolo, and Yule and Cordier,MarcoPolo.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 7 Feb 2015 03:03:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
246 Simon ofSaint-Quentin
city of Sebaste. Here the Dominicansmet the soldierProvengal,who provided
them with much informationabout the consequencesof the Mongol-Turkish
Treaty of 1245. SimonthusindicatesindirectlythatAscelinand his companions
visitedSebaste on theiroutwardjourneyin 1247.
The nextpositivestop on Ascelin'sitinerarywas the cityofTiflisin Georgia;
here the missionwas joined by Guichardusof Cremona.Much of Simon's de-
tailed information on the Mongol activitiesin Georgiaundoubtedlycame from
Guichardusand the Dominican friarsat Tiflis.96 Leaving Tiflis,Ascelin'sgroup
traveleddirectlyto Baiju's camp in the territory of Sitiens.
Afterspendingnine weeks in Sitiens,Ascelin and his companionsprobably
turnedsouthwardto visitRabbanata in the cityofTauris. Since theycame from
the northvia Tiflis,it is most logical to place theirvisitto Rabbanata on their
returntrip.Ascelinwas in a hurryto reachthe coast in orderto get passage be-
forewinter,97but his instructions to deliverpapal lettersto Rabbanta apparently
took precedenceover his travelplans. Since the friarshad a hard time finding
Rabbanata, theyevidentlyspentmoretimein Tauris than theyhad anticipated
or initiallyplanned. It seems reasonableto suppose that by this time Ascelin
realizedthathe could not reachthe coast in timeforthefallpassage back to the
West. Continuingthe hypothesis,Ascelinand hisfriarsthenprobablydecidedto
returnto the Dominican house at Tiflis98forthe winter,delayingtheirreturn
journeyuntilthe spring.This theoryexplainstwo puzzlingproblems:the reason
Ascelinfailedto make thefallpassage and thelengthofGuichardusofCremona's
associationwiththe papal envoys.
Guichardusspent fivemonthswith Ascelin's embassy. Subtractingthe two
monthsspent in Baiju's camp, Guichardustraveledwith Ascelinand his com-
panionsforthe remainingthreemonths.Under ordinarycircumstances, a round
trip betweenTiflis and Sitiens would not take threemonths,especiallywhen
one recallsthat it onlytook two months(fifty-nine days) to travelfromSitiens
to Acre,a distanceat least twiceas great as the roundtripbetweenTiflisand
Sitiens.However,a roundtripbetweenTiflisand Tauris via Sitiensis muchmore
reasonablea distance to be traveledin threemonths,especiallywhenthe addi-
tionaltimeneededto locate Rabbanata is takenintoaccount.
This explanationmakesmoresensethanthetraditionalreturnrouteattributed
to Ascelin- the fifty-nine day route fromSitiens to Acre via Tauris, Mosul,
Aleppo,and Antioch.99 If Ascelinhad takenthisfast,directrouteto the coast,it
to explainwhyhe missedthe fall passage. Since Ascelinwas eager to
is difficult
reachthe coast beforewinter,he certainlywouldnot have dallied alongtheway.
The two Mongol envoyswho accompaniedAscelinand his friarson the return
tripwould undoubtedlyhave facilitatedtheirpassage throughthe regionsunder
96 HT, pp.16and17.
97 SIH, XXXII, 50.
98 HT, p. 16. Mr Richard also believes that Ascelin's missionpassed throughTiflis twice, once

goingto and oncereturning fromBaiju's camp.

99MP, iv, 328. This is the most recentworkthat claimsAscelinreturnedvia the fifty-nine day
routebetweenSitiensand Acre.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 7 Feb 2015 03:03:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Simon of Saint-Quentin 247

Mongol dominion.100 Ascelin'sfailureto make the fall passage and the presence
of the two Mongol envoysboth tend to contradicthis returning by way of the
fifty-nineday routebetweenSitiensand Acre.
On the otherhand, there is much evidence to supportan alternatereturn
itineraryforAscelin'smission;one piece of evidenceindicatesthat he returned
over the same route he traveled to the Mongols, via Georgia, Armenia,and
Turkey.This evidenceis containedin VincentofBeauvais' SpeculumHistoriale,
Book xxxii, Chapter 53;101 here Simon records a miracle that occurredat
Iconiumin Juneof 1247.The papal envoyscouldnot have acquiredthisinforma-
tionon theirway to Baiju's camp because theDominicansarrivedin theMongol
camp on 24 May 1247.The Junemiraclethusoccurredwhilethepapal delegates
wereprisonersin Sitiens.Thus Simon could have learnedof this event only on
his returntrip,onlyon a returntripthroughTurkey.
Jean Richardgoes even furtherin identifying the returnrouteof Ascelinand
his companions,saying that they undoubtedlyreturnedalong the same route
whichWilliamofRubruckwas to followon hiswayback fromtheGreatKhan, i.e.
via Ani, Sebaste, Iconium,and Antioch.102At any rate,thislongnorthernroute
throughGeorgia, Armenia,and Turkey would explain why Ascelin firstre-
turnedto the Pope in 1248; he could not possiblyhave coveredthis long route
and arrivedin timeforthe 1247fallpassage.
AfterWilliamof Rubruck,Marco Polo traveledthiswell-knownrouteon his
way to the farEast. From Acre,Marco and his fatherand uncle took a ship to
Ayasl03in Lesser Armenia.In Chapter xx of his account of his travels,Marco
Polo said, "And all men and merchantswho wish to go furtherinland through
theregionsofthe east, comefirstto thesaid portofLaias [&] take theirway from
thistown."104 ShortlyafterestablishingAyas as thewesternterminalofthehigh-
way to theEast, Marco Polo gave a detaileddescriptionofthevariousstatesand
citiesalongthisroute.105
Additionalevidenceto supportAscelin'spassage throughAsia Minor comes
fromresearchon the historyof Medieval trade routesin the Near East. These
studies confirmthe importanceof the route taken by Ascelin,Rubruck, and
Marco Polo by theirunanimousagreementthatthewesternend ofthechiefover-
land route to centraland Eastern Asia passed throughAsia Minor and upper
Mesopotamia.

100 east ofAleppo.

Ibid. PelliotrecordsthattheMongolscontrolledeverything
that Chapter53 is also part of Simon of Saint-
101HT, p. 9. Mr Richardarguesveryconvincingly
Quentin'saccount,thatVincentfirststartedto use anothersourcein Chapter54.
102 MT, p. 16, note2. See also Itinerarium,pp. 149 and 312-329,and Dawson, TheMongolMission,
pp. 206-220.
103 Ayas is also called Layas, Ayacio,Acazzo, Giazzo, and Lajazzo; it was the chiefport of Lesser

Armenia.See Yule and Cordier,MarcoPolo, i, 16,note2.

104 Moule and Pelliot,MarcoPolo,i, 94.
105The early chaptersof Marco Polo's account bear the followingtitles: Chapter xxI - Turco-
manie,XXIi-Greater Armenia, XXIII - Georgia, xxiv- Mosul,xxvi- Tauris,and xxxi and
xXXii - Persia. See Moule and Pelliot,Marco Polo,i, 95-101,104-105,113-114,and 116-118,

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 7 Feb 2015 03:03:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
248 SimonofSaint-Quentin
The sourceformost of the studiesof mediaeval trade routesin the Eastern
Mediterraneancomes fromthe writingsof Francesco Pegolotti. This Italian
fromFlorencewrotein thefirsthalfofthefourteenth century.Sincehe was active
in the greatbankinghouse of Bardi, his extensiveknowledgeof commerceand
traderoutescan be acceptedwithconfidence.106
In his writings,Pegolottilisted the toll stationsbetweenAyas and Tabriz."07
Economichistorianshave sincespentmuchtimeand researchtryingto establish
the exact locationof each place mentionedby Pegolotti.In his editionof Pego-
lotti,Allan Evans collectsand presentsthe various suggestedlocationsof these
toll stations.108
While thereis disagreementover the preciseidentityof some of
the small towns, all of the scholars agree that the route went fromAyas to
Tabriz, via Sivas, Erzinjan, and Erzerum.
In effect,theproposedpassage ofAscelinthroughAsia Minorwouldplace him
on one of the main trade routesin the Levant - on the same routetraveledby
Williamof Rubruck,Marco Polo, and mostof the tradersand travelersto Cen-
traland Eastern Asia. There is ample proofthat the routeitselfexistedand was
well used, but the evidencethat Ascelinfollowedthis routeis less conclusive.
As stated earlier,the lack of informationin Simon's Historia Tartarorum
makesit impossibleforthe historianto ascertainAscelin'sexact itinerary.From
the fewknownplaces whichthe papal envoysvisited,it appears that theydid
followthe traditionalroute betweenAyas and Tabriz, with a detour through
Tiflisand Sitiens.In the last analysis,the routesuggestedhere is hypothetical,
althoughthe miracleofIconiumraisesit to the level ofprobability.
Finally,a wordon thegoals and accomplishments ofAscelin'smission.Unlike
the dates,composition,and routeof the embassy,Simon explicitlyrecordswhat
the Pope orderedAscelinto do.109This Dominican deputationwas sent to the
firstMongolarmywhichit couldfindin Persial10to exhorttheleaderofthatarmy
to stop despoilingmen, especiallyChristians,to accept Christianity,and to do
penanceforhis sins.111
106 FrancescoBalducci
ed. Allan Evans (Cambridge,Mass.,
Pegolotti,La practicadellamercatura,
1936),xv.
107Ibid.,pp.28-29.
108 Ibid., pp. 389-391. Here Evan's discussionrevolvesaroundthe seriousresearchof the
fourfol-
lowing reputable scholars: Heinrich Kiepert, "fiber Pegolotti's vorderasiatischesItinerar," in
Monatsberichte der k. preussischen
Akademieder Wissenschafter zu Berlin (1881), pp. 903-912; Wil-
helm Heyd, HIistoire du commerce du Levantau moyen-age, trans.,Furcy Raynaud (Leipzig, 1886),
ii, 113-117; E. Friedmann,"Der mittelalterliche Welthandelvon Florencein seinergeographischen
Ausdehnung,"in Abhandlungen der Weinerk.k.geographischen x, No. 1 (1912), 39-44;
Gesellschaft,
and Henry Yule, Cathayand theWay Thither,2nd ed., rev. by Henri Cordier(London, 1915), iII,
161-164. Kiepert includesa map (facingpage 902) of Pegolotti'stoll stationsbetweenAyas and
Tabriz. Much morecould be said on the topic of mediaevaltrade routesin the Levant, but this is
sufficient to establishthe location of the chiefroutethroughAsia Minor and upperMesopotamia.
109 SH, xxxii, 40.
110On two occasionsAscelinrefusedto go to the Great Khan, sayingthat lie had been sent spe-
cificallyto thefirstMongolarmyhe found.See S1, xxxii, 46-47.
"I SH, xxxii, 2 and 40.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 7 Feb 2015 03:03:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Simonof Saint-Quentin 249

Ascelinimpliedthat the papal letterswhichhe carriedcontainedthe same re-

quests; this is confirmedby the contentof Baiju's returnletterto the Pope.12
Baiju statesthatthepapal lettersand theenvoy'swordsexhortedtheMongolsto
stop killingand destroying.But he rejectedthisplea of InnocentIV and reiter-
ated that it was God's will that the Mongolsruletheworld.He thenorderedthe
Pope to come personallyand make his submission;if not, the Pope was to be
consideredan enemy.
As Baiju's returnletterindicates,Ascelin's legationwas not successful.The
Mongols feltAscelinwas arrogant,lackingin tact and diplomacy;he angered
themrepeatedly,particularlyby insistingthatthePope was superiorto theGreat
Khan and by refusingto genuflectbeforeBaiju.113The papal envoyswere con-
demnedto death threetimesby this armygeneral;114 only the pleas of Baiju's
eldestwifeand of the imperialofficialin chargeof envoyssaved Ascelinand his
companionsfromthe death sentence.115 Under theseconditions,it is not surpris-
ing that the missionwas unsuccessful.
WhileAscelin'sembassyfailedin the sensethat its primarygoal of converting
the Mongolswas not fulfilled, the expeditionwas not a total loss; it was respon-
sibleforthe productionof Simonof Saint-Quentin'sHistQriaTartarorum. In ad-
ditionto reportingthemissionitself,Simonrecordedmuchvaluable information
on the Mongol customsand habits,and theirconquest of the Near East, espe-
ciallythe Seljuk Turks. True, his reportis fragmentary and at timesinaccurate,
but it is valuable forreproducing the colorand themood ofan area whereChris-
tian, Muslim,and Mongol interestswerefatefullyinterwoven.
BRADLEY UNlVERSlTY

112SH, XXXII, 51.

113SH, xxxii, 40-41 and 43-48.
114SH, xxxiI, 44 and 48-49.
115SH, xXXII, 44.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 7 Feb 2015 03:03:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions