¹ Guillaume de Rubrouck, envoyé de Saint Louis. Voyage dans l'empire mongol (1253–1255), trans.Claude, and Kappler, René, Paris: Payot, 1985.Google Scholar

² The Vinland map and the Tartar relation, ed. and trans. Painter, George D., Marston, T. E. and Skelton, R. A., New Haven, Conn., and London, 1965;Google Scholar a better text edited by Önnerfors, Alf, Hystoria Tartarorum C. De Bridia monachi, Berlin, 1967.Google Scholar

³ Sinor, Denis, “John of Plano Carpini's return from the Mongols: new light from a Luxemburg manuscript,” JRAS, 1957, pp. 193–206;Google ScholarClément Schmitt, O.F.M., “Une version abrégée de l'“Historia Mongalorum”Google Scholar. Metz, Bibliothèque Municipale, ms. 651,” Archivum Franciscanum Historicum, LXV, 1972, pp. 368–88.Google Scholar Carpini himself tells us that incomplete versions of his report were being produced in Poland, Bohemia, Germany and N.E. France: Ystoria Mongalorum, ed. A. van den Wyngaert, O. F. M., in Sinica Franciscana, I. Itinera et relationes fratrum minorum saeculi XIII et XIV, Quaracchi-Florence, 1929, p. 130.Google Scholar

⁴ Pelliot, Paul, “Les Mongols et la papauté,” part III, Revue de l'Orient Chrétien, XXVIII, 1931–1932, pp. 12–77;Google ScholarHambis, Louis, “Saint Louis et les Mongols,” Journal Asiatique, CCLVIII, 1970, pp. 29–31.Google Scholar

⁵ “Cronica Fratris Salimbene de Adam,” ed. Holder-Egger, O., Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores, XXXII, Hanover, 1905–1913, pp. 206–7, 211.Google Scholar

⁶ Ibid., p. 213.

⁷ Rubruck, , Itinerarium ed. Wyngaert, van den, in Sinica Franciscana, I, p. 329.Google Scholar

⁸ Opus Majus, ed. Bridges, J., Oxford, 1897–1900, I, p. 305.Google Scholar

⁹ Van den Wyngaert, pp. 311–12.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 203.

¹¹ The two embassies appear to be confused again in n.3 at p. 140. It was the report of Andrew's first mission (1245–7) that was abstracted by Matthew Paris: on this, see Pelliot, , “Les Mongols et la papauté, part II, Revue de l'Orient Chrétien, XXIV, 1924, pp. 250–62,Google Scholar and part III, ibid., XXVIII, 1931–2, pp. 6–12.

¹² Wilhelm von Rubruk, Reise zu den Mongolen 1253–1255, Leipzig, 1934Google Scholar (Veröffentlichungen des Forschungsinstituts für vergleichende Religionsgeschichte a. d. Univ. Leipzig, II. Reihe, 13): one virtue of this work is the inclusion (pp. 1–20) of translations of related documents, e.g. a letter from Innocent IV to Sartaq.

¹³ The Mongol mission. Narratives and letters of the Franciscan missionaries in Mongolia and China in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, London: Sheed and Ward, 1955Google Scholar (repr. New York as Mission to Asia, 1966, 1979).Google Scholar

¹⁴ See nn.3 and 7; Rubruck's, Itinerarium constitutes pp. 164–332.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The journey of William of Rubruck to the eastern parts of the world, 1253–55, London, 1900 (Hakluyt Society, 2nd series, IV): pp. 1–39Google Scholar are a translation of chapter IX of Carpini's Ystoria Mongalorum and of the brief narrative of his companion Benedict the Pole, corresponding respectively to pp. 101–27 and 135–41 of van den Wyngaert's edition. A new translation (of Rubruck's report only), based on the Sinica Franciscana text and accompanied by an updated commentary, is being prepared for the Hakluyt Society by the author with D. O. Morgan.

¹⁶ “Voyage en Orient du Frère Guillaume de Rubruc,” ed. Fr. Michel and Th. Wright, in Recueil de voyages et de mémoires, ed. d'Avezac-Macaya, M.A.P., IV. Paris. 1839, pp. 205–396.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Beazley, C. Raymond, The texts and versions of John de Plano Carpini and William de Rubruquis, London, 1903 (Hakluyt Society, extra series), p. 177.Google Scholar

¹⁸ E.g., regarding the onager or wild ass (Turkish and Mongol qulan—Rubruck's culam), of which Rockhill says (p. 134, n. 2): “I have often chased them on horseback, but even when wounded they could get away from the best pony I have ever seen.”

¹⁹ The monks of Køblâi Khân, emperor of China, trans. Budge, E.A. Wallis, LondonThe Religious Tract Society, 1928.Google Scholar

²⁰ Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1973. The divisions are: (I) “En marge de Jean du Plan Carpin” (pp. 3–74);Google Scholar (II) “Guillaume de Rubrouck” (pp. 77–235);Google Scholar (III) “Màr Ya(h)b^hallàhâ, Rabban Sàumâ et les princes Öngüt Chrétiens” (pp. 239–88).Google Scholar The section devoted to Rubruck is thus by far the most lengthy.

²¹ “Mélanges sur l'époque des croisades. III. Sur quatre passages de Guillaume de Rubrouck.” Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, XLIV, Paris, 1951, pp. 48–72.Google Scholar

²² “The Turkic and Mongol words in William of Rubruck's Journey (1253–1255),” Journal of the American Oriental Society, XCIII, 1973, pp. 181–9.Google Scholar

²³ The history of the World-conqueror by ‘Ala-ad-Din ‘Ata-Malik Juvaini, Manchester, 1958:Google Scholar for Juwaynī's visit to Möngke's court, see the introduction, pp. xviii–xx. The successors of Genghis Khan, New York and London, 1971: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

²⁴ Cambridge, Mass., 1982: Harvard University Press.

²⁵ In Papers in Far Eastern History, IV. 09 1971,Google Scholaret seq. The volume containing Cleaves's commentary has yet to appear. For a comparison of the two translations, see the review of Cleaves by Morgan, D. O., in JRAS, 1984, pp. 179–80.Google Scholar

²⁶ Meng-ta Pei-lu und Hei-ta Shih-lüeh: Chinesische Gesandtenberichte über die frühen Mongolen, trans. Olbricht, P. and Pinks, E., Wiesbaden, 1980:Google ScholarHarrassowitz, (Asiatische Forschungen, LVI).Google Scholar

²⁷ Abramowski, Waltraut, “Die chinesischen Annalen von Ögödei und Güyük,” Zentralasiatische Studien, X, 1976, pp. 117–67;Google Scholareadem, “Die chinesischen Annalen des Möngke,” ibid., XIII, 1979, pp. 7–71.

²⁸ Das mongolische Weltreich: Al-'Umarī's Darstellung der mongolischen Reiche in seinem Werke Masālik al-abṣār fī mamālik al-amṣār, ed. and trans. Lech, Klaus, Wiesbaden, 1968:Google Scholar Harrassowitz (Asiatische Forschungen, XXII).

²⁹ “Kirakos of Ganjak on the Mongols,” Central Asiatic Journal, VIII, 1963, pp. 199–214;Google Scholar “The journey of Het˛um I, king of Little Armenia, to the court of the Great Khan Möngke,” ibid., IX, 1964, pp. 175–89. There is also now an excellent Russian translation of Kirakos by Khanlaryan, L. A., Istoriya Armenii, Moscow, 1976Google Scholar (Pamyatniki pis'mennosti Vostoka, LIII). For the friar's hopes and his failure to meet up with Het˛um, see van den Wyngaert, pp. 289, 313 (and on the latter passage, cf. Pelliot, , Recherches, pp. 214–5).Google Scholar

³⁰ Van den Wyngaert, pp. 213, 215, 244, 250.

³¹ Ibid., p. 243.

³² Ibid., pp. 204, 215, 250, 292–3; and cf. also p. 326. Richard, Jean, “Sur les pas de Plancarpin et de Rubrouck: la lettre de saint Louis à Sartaq,” Journal des Savants, 1977, p. 57Google Scholar and n.19; idem, La papauté et les missions d'Orient au moyen âge (XIIIe–XVe siècles), Rome, 1977Google Scholar (Collection de l'École Française, 33), pp. 78–80.

³³ Schollmeyer, Chrysologus, O.F.M., , “Die missionarische Sendung des Fraters Wilhelm von Rubruk,” Ostkirchliche Studien, IV, 1955, pp. 142–6.Google Scholar

³⁴ E.g., Hambis, , “Saint Louis et les Mongols,” p. 31:Google Scholar “…il [Saint Louis] décida d'envoyer comme é'missaire auprès de Sartaq.…” The title of the Kapplers' own translation (n. 1 above) is of course misleading, as is the statement, for example, that Rubruck advises Louis to send no more friars or mere monks (p. 60). What Rubruck says, in fact, is quod amplius vadat aliquis frater ad Tartaros, sicut ego ivi…, non videtur michi expedire.

³⁵ Van den Wyngaert, p. 289: Theutonici, pro quibus illuc pro magna parte ivi.

³⁶ Ibid., pp. 196, 222, 246, 291, 292, 299–300.

³⁷ Ibid., pp. 224–5, for the Germans; p. 312, for the baptisms.

³⁸ Ibid., p. 164.