SIMON OF ST QUENTIN
(fl. 1247), Dominican mission-traveller and diplomatist. He accompanied,
and wrote the history of, the Dominican embassy under Friar Ascelin or
Anselm, which Pope Innocent IV. sent in 1247 to the Mongols of Armenia
and Persia. Simon's history, in its original form, is lost; but large sections
of it have been preserved in Vincent of Beauvais's Speculum historiale,
where nineteen chapters are expressly said to be ex libello fratris
Simonis, or entitled frater Simon. The embassy of Ascelin and
Simon, who were accompanied by Andrew of Longjumeau, proceeded to the camp
of Baiju or Bachu Noyan (i.e. " General ” Baiju, Noyan signify
ing a commander of 10,000) at Sitiens in Armenia, lying between
the Aras river and Lake Gokcha, fifty-nine days' journey from Acre. The
papal letters were translated into Persian, and thence into Mongol, and
so presented to Baiju; but the Tatars were greatly irritated by the haughtiness
of the Dominicans, who implied that the pope was superior even to the Great
Khan, and offered no presents, refused the customary reverences before
Baiju, declined to go on to the imperial court, and made unseasonable attempts
to convert their hosts. The Frankish visitors were accordingly lodged and
treated with contempt: for nine weeks (June and July 1247) all answer to
their letters was refused. Thrice Baiju even ordered their death. At last,
on the 25th of July 1247, they were dismissed with the Noyan's reply,
dated the 20th of July. This reply complained of the high words of the
Latin envoys, and commanded the pope to come in person and submit to the
Master of all the Earth (the Mongol emperor). The mission thus ended in
complete failure; but, except for Carpini's (q.v.), it was the earliest
Catholic embassy which reached any Mongol court, and its information must
have been valuable. It performed something at least of what should have
been (but apparently was not) done by Lawrence (Lourenco) of Portugal,
who was commissioned as papal envoy to the Mongols of the south-west at
the same time that Carpini was accredited to those of the north (1245).
See Vincent of Beauvai's, Speculum historiale, book
xxxii. (sometimes quoted as xxxi.), chaps. 26-29, 32, 34, 40-52, (cf. pp.
453 A454 B in the Venice edition of 1591); besides these, several other
chapters of the Spec. hist. probably contain material derived from
Simon, e.g. bk. xxxi. (otherwise xxx.), chaps. 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 32;
and bk. xxx. (otherwise xxix.), chaps. 69, 71, 74-75, 78, 80. See also
d'Ohsson, Histoire des Mongols, ii. 200-201, 221-233; iii. 79 (edition
of 1852); Fontana, Monumenta Dominicana, p. 52 (Rome, 1675); Luke
Wadding, Annales Minorum, iii. 116-118; E. Bretschneider, Mediaeval
Researches from Eastern Asiatic Sources, vol. i., notes 455, 494 (London,
1888); M. A. P. d'Avezac's Introduction to Carpini, pp. 404-405, 433-434,
464-465, of vol. iv. of the Paris Geog. Soc.'s Recueil de Voyages, &c.
(Paris, 1839); W. W. Rockhill, Rubruck, pp. xxiv-xxv (London, Hakluyt
Soc., 1900); C. R. Beazley, Dawn of Modern Geography, ii. 277, and
Carpini and Rubruquis, 269-270.
(C. R. B.)
Charles
Raymond Beazley
Eleventh Editon, vol.25,
131d-132a