Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248)

Concerns

I have strong concerns about the sources on this article. Right now it lists:

• Runciman, p. 259
• Wilkinson (Intercivilizational Dialogues lecture)
• Grousset, p. 523
• Roux, p. 316

Well, I've checked Runciman, and there's no mention of this "Viam agnoscere veritatis" on that page. I've also checked Wilkinson, and ditto, no mention. Both do discuss papal communications, but the popes sent multiple communications, and I see nothing to confirm just which letter exactly was being discussed.

PHG, can you please explain? --Elonka 23:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple: Roux, Histoire de l'Empire Mongol, p.316: "Sergis et Aibeg were finally sent back on November 22, 1248, with an answer, known as Viam agnoscere veritatis." PHG (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So the only source which actually mentions this answer is Roux? Shell ^babelfish 11:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet another Coatrack?

PHG: I have electronic access to the entire letter via the Brepolis database and am wondering what you hope to accomplish by quoting this tiny fragment, as it mentions neither the killings of Christians nor the hope of an alliance. In addition, ought this not be included at Wikisource rather than as a Wikipedia article? I suspect that this is yet another Coatrack for your pet theory. Aramgar (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you have such access, do you think you could give the content of the letter here in its integrity? I am interested of course. Do you also have a translation of the letter? All the interpretations of the letter are not "mine", but those of Runciman, Grousset and Roux. Regards. PHG (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have spent the morning doing original research, i.e. reading the Latin letter Viam agnoscere veritatis. The letter is purely religious in character. There is no mention of an alliance or the killing of Christians. Furthermore the date of the letter in the article (1248) does not match the date of the letter in my version (March during the second year of Innocent IV or 1245) or even the date of the letter provided in the German dissertation (1245). I stand by my earlier statement: this is yet another coatrack. Aramgar (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a tiny quibble. Reading a letter isn't original research. If you had writen the letter, that would be original research. Reading a letter is source-based research, which is allowed. Wjhonson (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I'd love to know what's wrong with creating an article on a Papal bull. There is even a category "Papal bulls" for that. The letter "Viam agnoscere veritatis" is mentionned in Roux, Histoire de l'Empire Mongol, p.316: "Sergis et Aibeg were finally sent back on November 22, 1248, with an answer, known as Viam agnoscere veritatis.". The content of the bull is given in Sandra Brand-Pierach, Ungläubige im Kirchenrecht, Text of the letter p.174 ([1]). Runciman (p.259) is quoted for the fact that Aibeg and Sarkis returned to the Mongol realm in November 1248, with "complaints that nothing more was happening about the alliance". Grousset is quoted for the "message" (the here described bull) in which "he deplored "the delays to the general agreement between Mongols and Christiandom" ("Innocent IV congedia Aibag and Sargis en leur remettant pour Baiju une reponse dans laquelle il deplorait les retards apportes a une entente generale des Mongols et de la Chretiente."). Bottomline: Aibeg and Sargis were sent back with one message, known as Viam agnoscere veritatis (Roux). I am afraid you guys are starting to behave as stalkers. PHG (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with creating an article about a papal bull. However, the sources in the article should stick strictly to those that are about the document itself, without trying to read more into other sources. There were lots of letters flying around, and sometimes even multiple papal bulls within the same month, some even being carried by the same envoys. So let's please be sure that we're getting the sources right. For example, when you quote Runciman, it's true that Runciman says that the envoys were sent back with complaints, but nowhere does Runciman say that the complaints were in this particular document.

PHG, I have seen you do this with other documents as well, trying to read more into the sources than what is there, as though it's some kind of a logic puzzle. For example, Laurent Dailliez (in a very unreliable source) mentioned "a letter to the English king," and you read all kinds of other details into it, such as guesswork about when the letter was sent, and what the letter said, and you even quoted Latin from some other book as though you'd found the actual letter, but you still had no source which definitively linked them, and further, it turned out that you were quoting Latin that did not say anything close to what Dailliez was claiming.

For quality scholarship on this Viam agnoscere veritatis article, please, just stick to the sources. If you have something that specifically talks about this document, by name, then okay, but please don't try to triangulate it from other books that may or may not be talking about the same letter.

Also, when you're quoting from a French source, please do not provide your own translation, unless you are also providing the original French. Thanks, --Elonka 08:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

All authors who mention a letter talk about just one letter being remitted from the Pope to Aibeg and Serkis, so there is no "triangulation" at work here: it is just straightforward that it is one and the same letter, identified as Viam agnoscere veritatis by Roux. If you wish to contradict that, please just find just one source stating that the Pope gave several letters to Aibeg and Serkis. If you can't, you are making a gratuitous assertion that is not coroborated by academic sources. PHG (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that you're only aware of this particular letter and have determined that it must be the same? That's treading far into the field of original research. Shell ^babelfish 12:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

All the sources I know say there is just one letter. Further, Roux says that the letter is Viam agnoscere veritatis. If you have a source stating otherwise, go ahead, otherwise you are the one doing original research here. PHG (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry no, that's not how things work here. In scholarly research it is sometimes appropriate to draw your own conclusions based on your knowledge, however, this is never appropriate on Wikipedia. We know that one source names the letter and discusses it; you hypothesize that the other sources must mean the same letter. Please note that the original research policy specifically counsels us against speculation or synthesis of sources to advance a position. Elonka already clearly stated above that she reviewed the sources, using the references you gave and only Roux discusses Viam agnoscere veritatis. Shell ^babelfish 12:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. All authors speak about the letter given by the Pope to the Mongol envoys. This article is about the letter in question, which Roux specifically names as Viam agnoscere veritatis ("Sergis et Aibeg were finally sent back on November 22, 1248, with an answer, known as Viam agnoscere veritatis"). We are just using the name of the letter to name the article, but nobody disputes there is one single letter in question. If you insist, we could take out Runciman as a reference, as he only says "the complaints" rather than "the letter", but I am quite sure he is refering to the letter anyway here. Regards. PHG (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Any time someone has to say "I am quite sure someone is referring to whatever" you are doing research. It's that simple. PHG, you may be perfectly right in this instance, but you can't use Runicman here as a source because when you use him as a source for the transmission details on a letter that he doesn't name, but then tie it to another author who names the letter, you're putting words into Runicman's mouth. If Runicman had named the letter, then you would be on sure ground, but as he didn't, you're not and can't use it. If you had made an article on the 1248 embassy from the pope to the khan, you could state that Roux says it was this named letter, and you could say that Runicman doesn't name the letter directly but he says how it was transmitted. Do you see the difference?Ealdgyth | Talk 15:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul

Okay, after having gone spelunking through source documents, I think I've figured out what's going on, and I took a stab at untangling the article. Basically, it appears that "Viam agnoscere veritatis" is used to refer to multiple documents, at least three that I have identified so far. Two of them were the papal bulls issued in March 1245,March 5 March 13 and one, if I'm to believe Setton,[2] was the reply from Pope Innocent that was sent in 1248. The German dissertation that is sourced, though it calls the document "Viam agnoscere veritatis", is actually referring to the document that we already knew about, "Dei Patris Immensa", and this checks out from the source that was printed in the German dissertation, which matches the source document that is in the MGH. So I created some new sections, and moved the excerpt up into the "Dei patris immensa" section, and I think that straightens things out. I also removed some of the other sources, as we discussed above, which don't specifically mention which letter that they're talking about.

Now, I've done my best to sort things out in the article, though I think I may have been skating the edge of OR in places, since I'm basically saying that the German student got a title wrong. So if someone could please doublecheck what I've done, and let me know your thoughts, I would appreciate it. --Elonka 00:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Papal missions to the Tartars in 1245

According to I. de Rachewiltz’s Papal Envoys to the Great Khans (Stanford University Press, 1971), “Innocent sent a number of exploratory missions to the East a few months before the Council (of Lyons) was to meet” (p. 85). How many embassies did Innocent IV send to the Mongols in 1245?:

• Iohannes de Plano Carpini, Franciscan who traveled through eastern Europe and across southern Russia to Karakorum. According to the MGH, he carried letter #105 or “Viam agnoscere veritatis: cum non solum.”
• Laurentius de Portugal, Franciscan who “was to reach the Mongols from the Near East.” (Rachewiltz, p. 87). According to the MGH and the letter itself, Laurentius carried letter #102 or “Viam agnoscere veritatis: dei patris immensa.” Roux has speculated that he may never have left (p. 313). Rachewiltz says that nothing is known of Laurentius' mission, including whether he reached the Middle East (p. 118). Jean Richard agrees (Histoire des Tartares, p. 21).
• André de Longjumeau, Dominican who left at about the same as the two embassies above; Rachewiltz says March 1245 (p. 87). He passed letters intended for the Great Khan to a Mongol commander near Tabriz. The fate of the letters is unknown (p. 113). He returned to Lyons in April 1247 (p. 112).
• Ascelinus de Lombardia, and Simon de Saint-Quentin, Dominicans who also left Lyons in March 1245 (p. 87), a date supported by the front matter of Jean Richard's edition of Simon's Histoire des Tartares (Paris, 1965) (p.13). The mission found Baiju somewhere in Azerbaijan and returned to Lyons in late summer of 1248 with two Mongol envoys. Rachewiltz does not name them but says that one was "a Turk and the other a Nestorian Syrian" (p. 117). The following passage from Rachewiltz is interesting:

[Ascelinus' mission] lingered in Palestine for several months before sailing for Europe and were not back in Lyons until the late summer of 1248. Matthew Paris records in his chronicle the arrival of the Mongol envoys and the extreme secrecy which surrounded the purpose of their mission. Eventually, on 22 November, Innocent gave the two envoys his written reply to Baiju. In his letter the pontiff urged the Mongols to stop persevering in their errors and to end the slaughter, especially of Christians. There is not even a hint at a renewal of the dialogue with the Tartars. The papal missions may have been successful in collecting information on the Mongols, but they had not achieved their political and religious aims. There was, simply, no way of bridging the politico-religious ideology of the Mongols and that of the Church, both claiming to be universal and divinely inspired. Innocent, who had by now received all the reports from his envoys, recognized the impasse and rightly felt that this stage there was no point in pushing the negotiations further. Rachewiltz, p. 118

Aramgar (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

5 March 1245: viam agnoscere veritatis

Innocentius IV, Epistolae

Epp. Saec. XIII, Vol. 2, Epist. 102, pag. 72, lin. 7 <...> regi et populo Tartarorum viam agnoscere veritatis. Dei patris inmensa benignitas humani generis casum, quod primi hominis culpa corruerat, ineffabili respiciens pietate, ac illum, quem diabolica prostravit invidia suggestione dolosa, volens ex caritate nimia misericorditer reparare, filium suum unigenitum, consubstantialem sibi, de celi excelso solio misit ad infimum mundi solum, qui preelecte virginis utero sancti Spiritus operatione conceptus et ibi veste carnis indutus humane indeque postmodum clausa materne porta virginitatis egressus, cunctis visibilem se ostendit. Humana enim natura, cum esset rationalis, erat eterna veritate tanquam optimo suo cibo pascenda; set pena peccati mortalibus detenta vinculis ad hoc est diminutionis redacta, ut per coniecturas rerum visibilium ad intelligenda invisibilia niteretur cibi rationalis. Creature ipsius conditor factus est visibilis habitu nostro non sine commutatione nature, ut visibilia sectantes ad se invisibilem, factus visibilis, revocaret, salubribus homines institutis informans, viamque vite ipsis perfecte indice doctrina demonstrans, dignatus est post sacre conversationis exempla et evangelice instructionis eloquia sub dire crucis supplicio mortem pati, ut penali vite presentis fine penam mortis perpetue, quam prothoplausti posteritas ipsius incurrerat transgressione, finiret, et de amaro sue mortis calice temporalis hauriret homo vite dulcedinem sempiterne. Mediatorem namque inter nos et Deum et mortalitatem habere oportuit transeuntem et beatitudinem permanentem, ut per id, quod transit, congrueret morituris, et ad id, quod permanet, ex mortuis nos transferret. Pro humani ergo redemptione generis se hostiam exhibens, illud, sue salutis hoste prostrato, de obprobrio servitutis eripuit ad gloriam libertatis, superne sibi patrie ostium reserando; et demum resurgens a mortuis ac in celum ascendens, vicarium sibi reliquit in terris, cui animarum curam, ut earum saluti, pro qua suam humiliaverat altitudinem, vigilanter intenderet et invigilaret attente, amoris eius constantia trine professionis argumento probata commisit, tradens sibi claves regni celorum, per quas ipse suique per eum successores potestatem aperiendi omnibus et claudendi eiusdem regni ianuam obtinerent. Unde predicti vicarii disponente Domino nos licet inmeriti successores effecti, super omnia que nobis ex iniuncto incumbunt officio, ad vestram aliorumque salutem nostre intentionis dirigimus aciem, ad hanc precipue mentis nostre destinamus affectum, circa eam diligenti studio et studiosa diligentia sedulo vigilantes, ut errantes in viam veritatis educere omnesque lucrifacere Deo, sua nobis cooperante gratia, valeamus. Verum quia humane conditionis renitente natura uno eodemque tempore diversis locis presentialiter adesse nequimus, ne ullatenus negligere videamur absentes, ad eos viros providos et discretos transmittimus vice nostra, ipsorum ministerio circa illos apostolice servitutis debitum exsolventes; propter quod ad vos dilectum filium fratrem Laurentium de Portugal. et socios eius latores presentium ordinis fratrum Minorum, viros religione conspicuos, honestate decoros et sacre scripture scientia preditos, ut ipsum Dei filium Iesum Christum salutaribus eorum eruditionibus agnoscentes, suum gloriosum nomen Christiane fidei observatione colatis, duximus destinandos. Ideoque universitatem vestram monemus, rogamus et hortamur attente, quatinus eosdem fratres pro divina et nostra reverentia, immo potius nos in ipsis, benigne recipientes et honeste tractantes, eis super hiis, que vobis ex parte nostra dixerint, fidem indubitatam adhibere velitis, et cum ipsis de predictis tractatum fructuosum habentes, provideatis eisdem in eundo et redeundo de securo conductu et aliis necessariis, ut ad presentiam nostram, cum voluerint, tute valeant remeare. Memoratos autem fratres, quos tamquam diu sub observantia regulari probatos et plene in scripturis sacris instructos inter alios preelegimus, quia utiliores vobis fore credidimus, tamquam salvatoris nostri humilitatem sectantes, ad vos duximus transmittendos, et si putassemus, quod fructuosiores et gratiosiores vobis existerent, vel aliquos ecclesiarum prelatos ad vos aut potentes alios misissemus.

Dat. Lugduni, III Non. Martii, anno II

Aramgar (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, the above excerpt is from the document also known as Dei patris immensa (which you can see right after "veritatis"). This one was sent on March 5, 1245. --Elonka 00:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

13 March 1245: viam agnoscere veritatis

Innocentius IV, Epistolae

Epp. Saec. XIII, Vol. 2, Epist. 105, pag. 75, lin. 6 <...> regi et populo Tartarorum viam agnoscere veritatis. Cum non solum homines verum etiam animalia irrationalia nec non ipsa mundialis elementa machine quadam nativi federis sint unione coniuncta, exemplo supernorum spirituum, quorum agmina universorum conditor Deus perpetua pacifici ordinis stabilitate distinxit, mirari non inmerito cogimur vehementer, quod vos, sicut audivimus, multas tam Christianorum quam aliorum regiones ingressi, horribili eas desolatione vastatis, et adhuc continuato furore depopulatrices manus ad ulteriores extendere non cessantes, soluto cognationis vinculo naturalis, nec sexui nec etati parcendo, in omnes indifferenter animadversionis gladio desevitis. Nos igitur, pacifici regis exemplo cunctos in unitate pacis sub Dei timore vivere cupientes, universitatem vestram monemus, rogamus et hortamur attente, quatinus ab impugnationibus huiusmodi et maxime Christianorum persecutionibus de cetero penitus desistentes, super tot et tantis offensis divine maiestatis iram, quam ipsarum exacerbatione vos non est dubium graviter provocasse, per condigne satisfactionem penitentie complacetis; nec ex eo sumere debetis audatiam amplius seviendi, quod in alios potentie vestre furente mucrone omnipotens dominus diversas ante faciem vestram substerni permisit hactenus nationes, qui nonnunquam superbos in hoc seculo corripere ad tempus ideo pretermittit, ut si humiliari neglexerint per se ipsos, eorum nequitiam et punire temporaliter non postponat et nichilominus in futuro gravius ulciscatur. Et ecce dilectum filium fratrem I. et socios eius latores presentium, viros religione conspicuos, honestate decoros et sacre scripture scientia preditos, ad vos propter hoc duximus destinandos, quos pro divina reverentia, immo potius nos in ipsis, benigne recipiatis et honorifice pertractetis, fidem eis super hiis, que vobis ex parte nostra dixerint, adhibendo, et cum ipsis super predictis et specialiter de hiis que ad pacem pertinent tractatum fructuosum habentes, nobis, quid vos ad gentium exterminium moverit aliarum et quid ulterius intendatis, per eosdem fratres plenarie intimetis, providendo ipsis in eundo et redeundo de securo conductu et aliis necessariis, ut ad presentiam nostram tute valeant remeare. Memoratos autem fratres, quos etc. ut in proxima usque: alios misissemus.

Dat. Lugduni, III Idus Martii, anno secundo.

Aramgar (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And the above document (p. 75 instead of p. 72) is Cum non solum, sent March 13, 1245. --Elonka 01:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

22 November 1248: Viam cognoscere veritatis

Les registres d'Innocent IV publiés ou analysés d'après les manuscrits

originaux du Vatican et de la Bibliothèque nationale, par Élie Berger , II (Paris, 1887), no. 4682, pp. 113-114.

Bayonoy regi illustri, et nobilibus viris universis principibus et baronibus exercitus Tartarorum, viam cognoscere veritatis. Nuntios vestros, quos ad nostram presentiam destinastis, benigne recepimus, et ea que significastis nobis per ipsos intelleximus diligenter. Sane locum Dei licet immeriti , tenentes in terris, omnium salutem gentium ex imposito nobis officio quanta possumus vigilantia procurare debemus, ut quelibet rationalis creatura in mortali vivens corpore ad sui notitiam perveniat Creatoris, ipsumque fide sequens et opere possit secum post vite presentis curricula conregnare. Unde nos olim ne salutem vestram, licet in remotis agatis partibus, negligere videamur, nuntios nostros ad vos destinavimus, ut exponentes vobis fidem veram et rectam a mortis devio vos retraherent, et in viam vite dirigerent et salutis. Sed cum, nondum fidei Christiane illustrati lumine, adhuc in tenebris ignorantie ambuletis, Creatorem, Redemptorem et Salvatorem omnium Dei Filium Jhesum Christum minime agnoscentes, tanto de hoc (novit ipse Salvator) majori dolore turbamur intrinsecus, quanto per id gravius vobis imminere cognoscimus periculum animarum, presertim cum exposita iam vobis salutifere fidei veritate non possitis ulterius apud Deum super illius ignorantia excusari, nec de virium robore per quas multas hominum nationes permittente Domino superastis insultanter gloriari debetis, sed potius coram eo humiliare vos ipsos, et recognoscere multam patientiam ejus, qui tamdiu in vestris noxiis desideriis et actibus toleravit, expectando benigne ut errorum semitas relinquentes ad tramitem convertamini veritatis, propter quod recte formidare potestis ne in vos, si suam non agnoscatis omnipotentiam, sue flagellum iracundie tanquam nimium provocatus immittat. Ideoque nobilitatem vestram monemus, hortamur et sicut possumus obsecramus quatinus nostris salutaribus acquiescentes consiliis, et de profectu animarum vestrarum provide cogitantes, vias ad eternum ducentes interitum deseratis, aggredientes rectum iter per quod ad perempnis vite gaudia, duce ipso Christo Dei Filio qui vita et salus est omnium, pervenitur, et ut vobis ad habendam agnitionem omnium Conditoris gressus expeditior tribuatur, desistatis deinceps in cedem hominum, et maxime Cristianorum, exertum jamdudum dire persecutionis gladium exercere; abstinendo namque a talibus, que graviter oculos divine majestatis offendunt, facilius profecto ipsius gratiam et misericordiam poteritis invenire. Dat. Lugduni, x kalendas decembris, anno VI.

Aramgar (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a faithful summary, not an exact translation. If you should have questions about words, phrases, meaning, or nuance; please feel free to ask. I would be happy to discuss these with you.

To king Baiju Noyan, princes, and barons of the Tartar army: viam cognoscere veritatis.

We have received your messengers and understood what they had to say.

Because of the responsibility placed on us, we look after the salvation of all peoples, so that all rational beings may know their Creator, follow him in faith and deed, and be with him after they die.

So that we may not appear to neglect you, since you live so far away, we have sent messengers to explain the true faith and advise you about salvation.

But since you are not yet Christians and are ignorant, knowing little of the Creator and Jesus Christ; as much as we are troubled, we know that a more serious danger threatens your souls, especially since you have heard about the faith and cannot be excused before God on account of ignorance. Nor ought you be glorified on the grounds of the strength through which, with the Lord permitting, you have conquered many nations.

Better that you humble yourself before Him, face to face, and recognize His forbearance, Who for so long has endured your destructive actions; that in waiting, you may be turned from errors to truth, and be able to fear Him, lest He provoked for too long a time should threaten you, since you do not recognize His omnipotence.

And so we advise you, warn you, and beseech you, at long last, listening to our advice and thinking about the perfection of your soul, leave the ways leading to destruction and approach the right way through which one comes to joy after death.

And that you may make more unencumbered progress towards belief in the Creator of everything, cease at once to exercise the sword of persecution in the slaughter of people, especially Christians. By abstaining from such things, which offend the eyes of God, you will more easily find His grace and mercy. Lyon, 22 November 1248. Aramgar (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

the {{disputed}} tag

Are the disputes over yet ? There has been no edits to the article for almost 2 days. Can the {{disputed}} tag be removed ? This article is a DYK candidate. I would like to know if it's ready to be featured on MainPage yet? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The disputes on this page are not yet resolved and the page itself is not ready for the spotlight. I have been working on translations of the letters in question. Some of the assertions made about the letters in some of the secondary sources cited here are not true, while my assertions about what the letters actually say constitute original research. This article began as a coatrack to support one editor's specious assumptions about a Franco-Mongol alliance. Like many of the articles associated with the Franco-Mongol dispute (examples), this one may take several months to fix. Sorry. Aramgar (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I took another copyediting pass. As the article stands right now, I would be willing to remove the "disputed" tag, though if anyone else has concerns, please speak up, thanks. --Elonka 21:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I too am willing to remove the "disputed" tag. Aramgar (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Letters and bulls

I may have missed the answer to this somewhere above..but was it ever determined whether these are letters, or bulls? They are quite distinct - a papal letter is just a letter from a pope, which, while important, didn't have the same force as a bull. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand the later evolution of the term "papal bull" but believe it is safe to call this kind of formal communication in the middle of the 13th century a bull: it most certainly had a seal dangling from the bottom. If you think it may be confusing, I would be happy just to call them "papal letters." Aramgar (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In Dr. Jackson's Mongols and the West, both Cum non solum and Dei patris immensa are listed in the index under "Papal bulls". --Elonka 06:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What kind of seal did it have? How are they described in the papal registers? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

1248 letter

Numerous authors write about the 1248 letter given to Aibeg and Sarkis:

• "Histoire des Croisades", René Grousset, p523: Grousset mentions the "response remitted to Aibag and Sargis" in which "he deplored the delays to the general agreement between Mongols and Christiandom" ("Innocent IV congédia Aibag and Sargis en leur remettant pour Baiju une réponse dans laquelle il déplorait les retards apportés à une entente générale des Mongols et de la Chrétienté.").
• "Reaching Innocent in 1248, they were given his final communication, an appeal to the Mongols to end their slaughters, especially of Christians (Rachewiltz, 87, 115-118)." in David Wilkinson, Studying the History of Intercivilizational Dialogues
• Setton, p.522 "The Pope's reply to Baidju's letter, Viam agnoscere veritatis, dated November 22, 1248, and probably carried back by Aibeg and Sargis"
• Roux, Histoire de l'Empire Mongol, p.316: "Sergis et Aibeg were finally sent back on November 22, 1248, with an answer, known as Viam agnoscere veritatis" (Original French quote: "Serbeg et Aibeg furent finalement congédiés le 22 Novembre 1248 avec une réponse, la lettre connue comme Viam agnoscere veritatis").
• Runciman also states that Aibeg and Sarkis returned to the Mongol realm in November 1248, "with complaints that nothing further was happening about the alliance".

... are all of these historians wrong about the content of the 1248 letter? PHG (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think what we need to be careful about, is ensure that we're only using historians that are actually talking about this particular document. For Grousset and Runciman, it's not clear that they're talking about this particular letter, since what's in the Latin does not bear any resemblance to what they're saying. Runciman also is not using the Registres letter as a source, but is instead referencing something by Pelliot (which I haven't read). I checked Jackson's Mongols and the West, and he's definitely talking about the letter #4682 from the Registres, but says about it simply, "Innocent's reply to Baichu, dated 22 November 1248, merely warned him of the consequences of persisting in error." (Jackson, p. 89)

• Bottom line: I recommend that we stick with the modern historians' view of the letter, rather than trying to read anything into interpretations from over 50 years ago which may or may not have been talking about the same thing. --Elonka 10:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Are there really 3 “Viam Agnoscere Veritatis” letters ???

Where does the assertion come from that there were 3 letters called Viam Agnoscere Veritatis? There is visibly no reference in the article for this statement. I re-read the account by Jean-Paul Roux “Les Explorateurs au Moyen-Age”, and he clearly names three different letters by Nicholas IV to the Mongols, and he only mentions one Viam Agnoscere Veritatis. He clearly names the letters as:

• Dei Patris immensa (March 5, 1245)
• Cum non solum (13 March, 1245)
• Viam agnoscere veritatis (22 November, 1248)

Is there any scholar who actually says there were 3 Viam Agnoscere Veritatis letters?? If so, is it even a mainstream assertion, or just a confusion by one author? Alternatively, is it just an original research statement? A few contributors have strongly criticized me for speaking about one “Viam Agnoscere Veritatis” and claimed there were actually three, but from the sources I have access to there was only one such named letter indeed (Roux). I checked on Google book, and there is not a single reference for "three Viam agnoscere veritatis". It would also seem that "Viam cognoscere veritatis" is never used as a name for the third letter. Please advise. PHG (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see my section #Overhaul above. --Elonka 18:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

To your knowledge, does any author say that there were 3 letters called Viam Agnoscere Veritatis? PHG (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of any, no, but that doesn't mean the statement is inappropriate. See What is not original research. Anyone can look for themselves at the documents and see that they start off with "Viam Agnoscere Veritatis" or some variant. Papal bulls are normally named after the first few words of the document, which is why there is probably confusion on this matter. --Elonka 18:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So, you've been steneously attacking me by claiming that there were actually 3 letters called "Viam Agnoscere Veritatis" when I only spoke about one, but this is actually just your own interpretation, and is not corroborated in any way by published sources?? Elonka, this is serious: it seems you have totally made up this story about the 3 "Viam Agnoscere Veritatis" letters to try to discredit the article I created! These letters are called by three different names by scholars (Dei Patris immensa (March 5, 1245) Cum non solum (13 March, 1245) Viam agnoscere veritatis (22 November, 1248)) and actually nobody says there were 3 Viam agnoscere veritatis except you! I hereby demand an apology from you, and that you retract all your accusations. PHG (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PHG, you were the one who brought in the document from the German dissertation, that quoted "Dei Patris Immensa" but called it "Viam agnoscere veritatis." You are also the one who has been quoting multiple scholars who don't mention any document name, and then trying to claim that this means that they were talking about this one. Let's please keep things straight here. Check the above threads on this page for details. --Elonka 19:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I will gladly recognize that I mistakenly quoted a segment of "Dei patris inmensa" for "Viam agnoscere veritatis" in the original Latin, that happens. It is unrelated, and it does not change at all the fact that you fabricated the story that there were 3 letters named "Viam agnoscere veritatis", a fabrication you used to attack me. You are only throwing more dirt to try to hide this fabrication. Please apologize and correct yourself. If anything, this article should either be called Letters of Innocent IV to the Mongols with the three letters in them, or Viam agnoscere veritatis with only the Viam agnoscere veritatis letter in it, in which case it will be again legitimate to insert the comment by Grousset about the "response" which was remitted to Aibeg and Sargis. PHG (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm, Pope Nicholas IV? I think you mean Pope Innocent IV. Pope Nicholas was decades later. --Elonka 06:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Corrected, but the statement and the proposal stand. PHG (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is that apparently no historian has ever talked about 3 "Viam agnoscere veritatis" letters. This turns out to be an interpretation made by a few editors here, based on their personal reading of the first words of the letters sent by Innocent IV to the Mongols. Historians however take great care in naming the three letters differently, precisely I suppose because they start with the same words. The three names used for these letters are (Referenced from Roux):

• Dei Patris immensa (March 5, 1245)
• Cum non solum (13 March, 1245)
• Viam agnoscere veritatis (22 November, 1248)

We should therefore have one article for each letter, as is typical for Papal bulls (see Exultavit cor nostrum). I am also asking the various contributors who accused me of "misrepresention", claiming that "there were several Viam agnioscere veritatis letters rather than just one" (which I had created this article about), to retract themselves and correct their accusations on various pages (especially Evidence and Workshop pages on Arbcom). Regards PHG (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not "an interpretation made by a few editors here"; "reading of the first words of the letters" is standard naming procedure for papal bulls. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously not the procedure that has been followed for these 3 letters however, perhaps because of the confusion that would have arisen. Apparently nobody has ever claimed that there were 3 Viam agnoscere veritatis letters (appart from 2 or 3 Wiki contributors here). In the literature, these letters are clearly named separately: Dei Patris immensa (March 5, 1245) Cum non solum (13 March, 1245) and Viam agnoscere veritatis (22 November, 1248), and academic usage is what should prevail, rather than some deductions made by a few Wikipedia editors. PHG (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that editors here are to be denigrated if Roux used an atypical naming system. I have the p.316 reference for Viam Agnoscere Veritatis; can you please give me the page references for his use of the other names? Kafka Liz (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Roux's naming system, far from being an atypical one, seems to be the standard. Apparently nobody ever wrote about 3 Viam Agnoscere Veritatis letters: this is a fabrication. I am not denigrating anybody, I am just asking not to be slandered with false claims:

• For Roux (Les explorateurs au Moyen-Age ISBN 2012793398) it is: Dei patris immensa and Cum non Solum homines in 1245 (p.94), and Viam agnoscere veritatis in 1248 (p.105).
• For Jackson (The Mongols and the West) it is also Dei patris immensa and Cum non Solum in 1245 (p.88).
• For Setton (A history of the Crusades) it is "Two pontifical letters, Dei patris immensa dated March 5 and Cum non solum dated March 13, 1245" (p.519)

It is also the case for numerous other historians per Google Books [3], so it is obvious that Roux is absolutely not alone here. Quite the contrary: nobody ever speaks about "Three Viam agnoscere veritatis letters" [4]. If somewhere such reference exists, it would be marginal at best. To all historians there is only one Viam agnoscere veritatis, which is the 1248 letter, and the 1245 letters are designated Dei patris immensa and Cum non solum.

Again, I am also asking the various contributors who have been accusing me of "misrepresention" by indignantly claiming that "there were several Viam agnioscere veritatis letters rather than just one" (which I had created this article about), to retract themselves and correct their accusations on various pages (especially Evidence and Workshop pages on Arbcom). PHG (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)