Journal of Medieval History 37 (2011) 90–101

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Medieval Historyjournal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/

jmedhist

Mongol inhospitality, or how to do more with less? Giftgiving in William of Rubruck’s Itinerarium

A.J. WatsonDarwin College, Silver Street, Cambridge CB3 9EU, United Kingdom

Keywords:William of RubruckGiftsFoodMongolsSocial customsThirteenth centuryGenghis KhanBlessing

E-mail address: ajw235@cam.ac.uk.1 As primary sources for this paper, I have relied

in: Sinica Franciscana I. Itinera et relationes FratrumPeter Jackson’s translation of William of Rubruck’s aD. Morgan (London, 1990). Where appropriate, I hJackson’s translation follows the same chapter andXXIII: 2. Sinica Franciscana I, ed. Van den Wyngaer

0304-4181/$ – see front matter � 2010 Publisheddoi:10.1016/j.jmedhist.2010.12.006

a b s t r a c t

This article examines the journey to the Mongol court by the Fran-ciscan William of Rubruck and his unsuccessful attempts to nego-tiate his way through the Mongol hierarchy with gifts of food. UsingWilliam of Rubruck’s account of his journey, the Itinerarium, thisarticle analyses the utility of gifts of food across different culturalcontexts. Rubruck ultimately gained status among the Mongolsthrough his ‘gift of self’, demonstrating how social standing can benegotiated through finding the appropriate cultural grammar forgift giving. Pervasivewesternmedieval views on gift givingwere notuncontested: alternate views of what constituted a gift existedwithin the broader thirteenth-century world.

� 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

In 1255, William of Rubruck, a Franciscan missionary preacher, sat down in a convent in the crusadergarrison city of Acre to write a detailed account for his sovereign, Louis IX of France, of his two anda half year journey to theMongol capital Kharakhorum. On that expedition, FriarWilliam had set out tominister to a group of European slaves serving a Mongol lord, about whom William had learned froma travel account; instead, he found himself embroiled in the tumultuous political intrigue and religiousone-upmanship that was life at the Mongol court.1 At the time of his journey, the Mongol empireencompassed most of Asia, from the Manchurian coast in the east, to Persia, Kiev, and Konya in the

chiefly on two texts: the critical edition of William of Rubruck’s ItinerariumMinorum saeculi XIII et XIV, ed. A. Van den Wyngaert (Florence, 1929), andccount: The mission of Friar William of Rubruck, ed. and trans. P. Jackson andave used my own translation of the Latin as found in Van den Wyngaert.verse schema as Van den Wyngaert; notes are given in the format: WR,

t, 24; William of Rubruck, ed. Jackson, 144.

by Elsevier Ltd.

Map 1. The Journey of William of Rubruck.

A.J. Watson / Journal of Medieval History 37 (2011) 90–101 91

west. Within the next few years, Baghdad would fall to Hulegu, grandson of Genghis Khan. Anothergrandson, Kubilai, would establish the Yuan dynasty in China, while a further grandson, Mongke, ruledas great khan. The account that Rubruck left d his Itinerarium d remains one of the more impressivemedieval travel accounts, encompassing a journey of over 7000 miles and providing a record of thepeoples and religions found within the Mongol empire at this time (Map 1).

On many occasions on his journey to the great khan of the Mongols, however, William of Rubruckprobably turned his gaze skyward and prayed for the deliverance of his small band of travellers, whowere on the verge of starvation in the wilds and steppes of Eurasia. To stave off hunger, they had begunto eat the biscuits he had brought as gifts for the Mongol lords they would encounter along the way,finding that the provisions they did receive from the Mongol captains and princes were woefullyinsufficient for their survival. On the outward journey into Mongol territory, and despite being quicklyintercepted by Mongol scouts, the Itinerarium recounts several times when the party nearly starved:‘Were it not for the biscuit we had, and the Grace of God, death would surely have come to us.’2 Insteadof hospitality, Rubruck found himself quickly stripped of most of his valuables by acquisitive membersof the Mongol camps he encountered.

On the return trip from the court of Mongke Khan, however, William of Rubruck’s experience wasquite different. He described hardships to be certain: ‘we would go for two days d and sometimesthree d without partaking of any sustenance other than khumiz’ (the fermented mare’s milk that isa staple of the Asian steppes); but he undertook the journey with an escort and his manservant,provisions and a warrant for the regular supply of food under orders from the great khan himself.3

Equally telling with regard to his return journey, he re-encountered two of the Mongol lords he hadmet previously, and not only recovered many of the items that had been taken from him, but alsoreceived valuable gifts.

What brought about this remarkable change in fortune and this significant difference in the degreeof hospitality? This paper argues that the episodes of ritualised giving found in Rubruck’s Itinerariumdetail his negotiation of status within the Mongol empire. Initially of indeterminate standing, caughtsomewhere between a poor envoy, strange priest, and beggar, his gifts were found insufficient and hisapproach insulting. As a result, he was relegated to low status within Mongol hierarchy. As his journeyprogressed, however, Rubruck discovered that his priestly status enhanced his position, that he was

2 WR, XI: 3.3 WR, XXXVII: 1.

A.J. Watson / Journal of Medieval History 37 (2011) 90–10192

eventually accorded a level of respect within Mongol social hierarchy, and even found the presentationof physical gifts unnecessary.

Gifts from Constantinople

From the beginning of his journey in Constantinople, William of Rubruck attempted to come to anunderstanding of Mongol custom. He was familiar with the accounts of earlier emissaries to theMongols, particularly Andrew of Longjumeau and John de Plano Carpini, details of whose journeys hementions in his own account.4 Rubruck embarked on his journey with at least a general view of theMongol sense of reciprocal giving, for he noted of the Mongols that ‘they regard no one with favourwho arrives empty handed.’5 Finally, ‘at the counsel of merchants’ in Constantinople, who presumablyhad trading relationships with the Mongols, he purchased Muscat wine (vinum muscatos [sic]),‘gourmet’ biscuits (biscoctum delicatum), and fruit to bring as gifts into Mongol territory.6 William ofRubruck also brought other items with him that over the course of his journey he found to beconsidered to be of value to the Mongols. These included sacramental vestments, an illuminatedPsalter, a Bible, and other books. With these gifts in hand, William of Rubruck set sail across the BlackSea, landing in Soldaia on the Crimean Peninsula where trading networks quickly took his party intoMongol lands.

Meeting with commander Chaghatai and the establishment of status in Mongol society

Crossing into Mongol territories, Rubruck and his party were soon met by the horsemen of thecommander of that region, Chaghatai. Chaghatai was a kinsman to Batu who, as a grandson of GenghisKhan and cousin of the Great Khan Mongke, was one of the most powerful figures in the Mongol rulinghierarchy and de facto ruler of the western reaches of the Mongol empire. Friar William was imme-diately put on his guard by the insistence of Chaghatai’s horsemen that they receive gifts, reinforcinghis earlier statement that the Mongols did not appreciate the empty-handed: ‘It is true they bear awaynothing by force, but vehemently pester and impudently seek that which they see, [but] if a man givesto them, he squanders effort, as they are ingrates. Indeed they consider themselves lords of the world,and regard that nobody ought deny them a thing. If one does not give [to them], and later is in need oftheir services, it is illy ministered.’7 When Rubruck’s party reached the pickets of Chaghatai’s camp,they were met by an interpreter for the Mongol commander, who, upon learning that they had notvisited them before, demanded a gift of food.8 Once he had received food, the interpreter asked whatmanner of gifts Rubruck’s party brought to his master Chaghatai, and showed displeasure on learningthat Rubruck intended to offer him some of thewine, biscuits, and fruit that he had brought. Rubruck inparticular noted that he expected to offer apples (pomis) for Chaghatai, a gift that was common in thewest, but one d like Rubruck’s other gifts d which made little impression.9 Indeed, Rubruck noted

4 WR, XVIII: 4; XIX: 5.5 WR, I: 9.6 WR, I: 9. The wine would have been Muscat, a popular medieval wine, and not Muscadine as translated by Jackson, as

Muscadine is native to North America. D. Stanley, America’s first grape. The Muscadine (United States Department of Agriculture,Agricultural Research Service, Poplarville, MO, 2007), <http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/nov97/musc1197.htm>,accessed August 18, 2010.

7 WR, IX: 3.8 WR, X: 2. This custom is also described at IX: 1, and is presumably an adaptation of the custom described by V. Riasanovsky,

Fundamental principles of Mongol law (Tiensin, 1937), 84; and see note 17 below. It should be pointed out that Riasanovsky alsoindicates that captives were to share equally with their lords if sitting at a meal with them, and that travellers were free to joinin meals. With regard to captives, this illustrates more about the custom of meals than it does the frequency with which this islikely to have occurred, and did not imply a change in status for them by bringing them within Mongol society. Likewise withtravellers, this instance was probably intended for travellers from tribes within the nomadic society of the steppe, most if not allof whom had by this time sworn allegiance to the khan. Ambassadors from outside this society are reported to have experi-enced very different treatment.

9 C.M. Woolgar, ‘Gifts of food in late medieval England’, Journal of Medieval History, 37(2011), 6–18; see also L. Kjaerand A.J. Watson, ‘Introduction’, Journal of Medieval History, this issue.

A.J. Watson / Journal of Medieval History 37 (2011) 90–101 93

‘[Chaghatai’s aide] was not pleased that we were not taking precious cloth [to his master].’10 From thefirst instance, therefore, there was dissonance between Rubruck’s expectations of his gifts of food andtheir suitability as perceived by the recipients.

This disjuncture was probably related to confusion among the Mongols over the purpose ofWilliamof Rubruck’s mission. While William of Rubruck did announce in a sermon in Constantinople that hewas not an envoy of Louis IX ‘nor of anyone else’, and he later described his mission to Lord Buri’s slavesas ‘my chief reason for going there’, he did not correct the impression created by merchants who hadpreceded him to Soldaia that hewas an ambassador from the Holy Land.11 The fact that he bore a lettersfrom Louis IX and Baldwin II to theMongol Prince Sartaq probably added to this confusion. Again at theadvice of others, Rubruck repeated a formulaic d and ambiguous d description of his mission.12 Asa result, William was initially regarded by the Mongols he encountered as an emissary, and not asa member of a holy order. Accordingly, Rubruck’s gifts of food were seen as ungenerous for anambassador. Given his observation that the Mongols did not appreciate the ‘empty-handed’, Rubruckwas probably aware of this. Beyond the advice of merchants in Constantinople, for his knowledge ofdiplomatic gift culture Rubruck could rely on accounts from within his own Franciscan order, such asthat of John of Plano Carpini: ‘Princes and other nobles and lesser men seek gifts from them, and if theydo not give them the Tartars insult the ambassadors as though they were unimportant, and if theambassador is sent by a great man they do not wish to take a small gift from him.’13 Thus despite hisefforts to the contrary d insufficient though they may have been d Rubruck found himself walkinga line of indeterminate and ambiguous status: he had been described as an ambassador, he bore theletters of kings and sought audience with the Mongol leaders, yet he wore the beggar’s garb ofa Franciscan and brought paltry gifts of food inconsistent with what would be expected from theemissary of kings.

Rubruck probably sensed this himself, for when he was brought before Chaghatai, he sought tostrike the proper tone, that of a priest, in his address to the Mongol commander: ‘I asked [. . .] if hewould be so gracious as to accept a little gift [of food] from our hands [. . .] to excuse me as a monk andthat it was not in keeping with our order to own gold, silver, or precious vestments [. . . and to] acceptour food as a benediction. Then he had them received and distributed to his men on the spot.’14 Again,however, Rubruck may have confused Chaghatai about the nature of the mission, since he used theformulaic diplomatic language he had employed before. He ‘addressed [Chaghatai] with the words Ihad previously quoted, for we had to say the same thing at every point [. . .] We had been well warnedby people who had visited them never to alter what we said.’15

In response and in keeping with Mongol custom, Chaghatai then offered khumiz to those present. Inhis Fundamental principles of Mongol law, Valentin Riasanovsky quotes from a document considered tobe the Y�as�a d or ‘great law’ d of Genghis Khan, which contains a great deal of guidance on Mongolviews on hospitality and illustrates the importance placed on sharing food.16 For example, a maxim ofthe Y�as�a forbids ‘the eating of anything in the presence of another without inviting him to partake ofit’.17 Hospitality and the sharing of food was expected in Mongol culture, a necessity in the harshconditions of the steppe. Riasanovsky notes that ‘customs of hospitality, the principles of mutuality and

10 WR, X: 2.11 WR, I: 6; XXXIII: 1. While Rubruck does not claim he was an envoy of Louis IX, he does not claim that he was not. WR, IX: 1.On William of Rubruck’s statement that the slaves were his primary mission, see William of Rubruck, ed. Jackson, 226, note 3.12 See WR, I: 7; IX: 1; X: 4.13 E. Hildinger, The story of the Mongols whom we call the Tartars (Boston, 1996), 66; Sinica Franciscana I, ed. Van den Wyngaert,68.14 WR, X: 4.15 WR, X: 4.16 There is debate about whether this collection of maxims was established by Genghis Khan or whether it stemmed fromearlier Mongol customs. Regardless of provenance, the maxims remain a telling glimpse into Mongol customs and hospitalityand are supported by the contemporaneous observations of travellers such as William of Rubruck. See D.O. Morgan, ‘The greatY�as�a of Chingiz Kh�an and Mongol law in the �Ilkh�anate’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 49 (1986), 163–76,especially 168–71.17 Riasanovsky, Mongol law, 83, 151.

A.J. Watson / Journal of Medieval History 37 (2011) 90–10194

reciprocal aid, the clan system and co-operation between tribes were characteristic of the life’ of boththe present-day Buriats he examined as well as that of their close cousins, the Mongols.18

Sharing food communally also established status, and the Y�as�a also provides clues to how ideas ofsharing food for survival also determined the role food and clothing played in this regard withinMongol hierarchy. The degree of food, clothing, and other goods one received was directly correlatedwith one’s position and standing within Mongol society. There are abundant examples of the richesenjoyed by the Mongol elite and the munificence captains and commanders d both Mongol andforeign d received for their service and loyalty to the Khan’s regime.19 In underscoring this relation-ship between goods and status, the Y�as�a also describes how the giving of goods could be restricted. Itpointedly warns that ‘whoever gives food or clothing to captives without the permission of the captorsis [to be] put to death.’20 In Mongol society, the lives of slaves and captives were at the completecommand of their masters. Slaves had no status at all, and their treatment was no better than, andperhaps even below, that of livestock. Indeed William of Rubruck described an encounter with a groupof Christian slaves from eastern Europe, Armenia and Georgia who received no food or clothing fromtheir masters and who could survive by theft alone.21 John of Plano Carpini also noted that Mongolcaptives and slaves ‘eat and drink a trifle, and they are wretchedly dressed unless they are able to raisethemselves through goldsmithing or other valuable arts’.22 Without a skill of value to the group, theconferral of food or clothing on a slave by onewhowas not their master would be tantamount to givingthem hospitality, which, according to Mongol social norms, would confer status, as well as expendinglimited resources. As slaves and captives were groups pointedly excluded from hospitality and seen asa potential drain on resources, such an action would have threatened not just the social order but alsothe survival of the group.

This concept of limiting hospitality to thosewithin the group can be seen in the example of emissariesas well. Owing to the confusion over the purpose of his mission, the Mongols were initially unsure howto treat Rubruck, and their response corresponded with what would be offered to an ambassador. Thisstance, however, was not enviable: ambassadors, like captives and slaves, were viewed as individualsfrom outside the group and were provided with very little by the Mongols themselves. Ambassadorswere expected for the most part to provide for themselves and their companions, while providingtribute to the Mongol nobles they encountered.23 Despite his comments to the contrary, it is verypossible that, given the customary hospitality extended to ambassadors in his own culture, William didnot understand the implications of ambassadorial status among the Mongols, and expected bettertreatment. While staying in Chaghatai’s camp, his party was apparently on the verge of starvation: theirhost provided only sour cow’s milk, and they drank the last of the wine they had brought.24

18 Riasanovsky, Mongol law, 170. The Buriat are a modern Mongol-Siberian people with a way of life rooted in Mongolianculture, and a history of interaction with the Mongols dating back to the thirteenth century. Riasanovsky is describing Buriatlaw and culture in this instance, but these aspects would also apply to Mongol culture. For mention of the Buriat, see The secrethistory of the Mongols, ed. and trans. F.W. Cleaves (London: 1982), 173 (Secret History, X: x239).19 See WR, X: 1–2; XV: 1; XIX: 4–6, and many other examples; also described in Morris Rossabi, Khubilai Khan. His life andtimes (Berkeley, 1988), 58.20 Riasanovsky, Mongol law, 83, 150.21 WR, XXX: 10–12.22 Hildinger, Story of the Mongols, 84; Sinica Franciscana I, ed. Van den Wyngaert, 92. William of Rubruck confirms this in hisown account in describing the goldsmith William Buchier, who hailed from Paris and had as a result of his metalworking skillsrisen to a position of great standing at the court of the great khan. In addition to being paid handsomely and receiving greatfreedom for this skill, Buchier is credited with being the craftsman responsible for creating the silver tree of Kharakhorum,a symbol of Mongol power prominently displayed in Mongke’s palace. See WR, XXIX: 2; XXX: 2–4; L. Olschki, GuillaumeBoucher, a French artist at the court of the khans (Baltimore: 1946).23 The Mongol word for ‘peace’ (‘il’: Jackson, Mongols and the west, 46, 55 note 79) was identical to that for ‘submission’, anaspect which greatly informed Mongol diplomacy. Ambassadors were seen not as diplomats facilitating communicationsbetween equal sovereigns so much as representatives of vassals who owed tribute to the Mongol khan. Plano Carpini alsonoted this in his account. See E. Voegelin, ‘Mongol orders of submission to European powers, 1245–1255’, Byzantion, 15(1940–1), 378–413; Peter Jackson, The Delhi Sultanate. A political and military history (Cambridge, 2003), 103–4; Peter Jackson,The Mongols and the west (London, 2005), 45–7; Hildinger, Story of the Mongols, 79–80; Sinica Franciscana I, ed. Van denWyngaert, 84–5.24 WR, XI: 3.

Table 1Gifts given and received between William of Rubruck and Commander Chaghatai

William of Rubruck gives: William of Rubruck receives:‘Gourmet biscuits’ (biscoctum delicatum) Several skins of cow’s milkFruit, including apples (pomis) ‘Too little’ (parum) khumizMuscat wine (vinum muscatos) One goat

Source: WR, X: 2 and XII: 3.

A.J. Watson / Journal of Medieval History 37 (2011) 90–101 95

William of Rubruck was not the only traveller among the Mongols to note the difficulties faced bythe envoys and ambassadors of other sovereigns. John of Plano Carpini had also reported thatambassadors ‘have little food or clothing because their allowances are mean and poor [. . .] what theTartars give to ten men could hardly support two.’25 Adding to the difficulties ambassadors faced, inaddition to providing largely for themselves, they were also expected d as were visiting princes d tooffer many gifts to their Mongol hosts:

25 Hil26 Hil27 WR28 WR29 WR

The Tartars order the princes of the earth to visit themwithout delay, and when they arrive theyreceive none of the honours they are accustomed to, but instead are treated like commonpeople,and they must present the Tartars with many gifts: to the leaders and their wives and to theofficers of the thousands and hundreds; to everyone generally. Even the servants themselvesseek gifts with great insistence and not only from [the princes], but even from the ambassadorswhen they are sent to them.26

From this it would appear that Rubruck was treated quite normally for an ambassador, according tocustom, during his stay with the Mongol commander Chaghatai. The conflicting reports of Rubruck’sintentions, the letters he carried, and the ambiguous explanation he provided of his mission, confusedthe Mongol appreciation of his status, a confusion that would remain until he could clarify his role asthat of a Franciscan missionary. His gifts were seen as paltry for an ambassador and he received giftsin turn which were generally consistent with those that others, such as Plano Carpini, had observed(Table 1).

Interestingly, outside official circles Rubruck’s party fared somewhat better. Once his party set outfrom Chaghatai’s camp under escort and made for Prince Sartaq’s camp, they encountered a group ofsalt-tax collectors for Sartaq and Batu stationed at the Isthmus of Perekop, who, after a gift of biscuits,offered them khumiz, another goat, and several skins of cow’s milk for their journey.27

Negotiating status in audiences with Prince Sartaq and Lord Batu

After over a month of travel, William of Rubruck’s party reached Sartaq’s court, where it wassummoned by Coaic, a Nestorian who served as a majordomo for Sartaq.28 Describing this firstencounter, Rubruck again sought to clarify his status as a member of a religious order, on this occasionwith a little more success. He repeated the formulaic description of his mission, but explained his lackof significant gifts: ‘I excused myself [. . .] as a monk and neither had nor received nor handled gold orsilver or other valuables, the sole exception being the books and liturgical items with which we servedGod [. . .] so wewere bringing no gifts for him or his master.’29While Coaic acknowledged this, Rubruckwas less successful with regard to his status, presumably because confusion remained about the natureof his mission: it continued to be regarded by the Mongols as at least partially diplomatic, and Rubruckwas still required to seek status within the hierarchy as an outsider who must provide gifts.

This ambiguity is best illustrated in an incident that happened on the following day. Rubruck wassummoned to Sartaq’s court: he was ordered by Coaic to bring the letter from the king, and to lay out

dinger, Story of the Mongols, 66; Sinica Franciscana I, ed. Van den Wyngaert, 68.dinger, Story of the Mongols, 80; Sinica Franciscana I, ed. Van den Wyngaert, 86., XII: 4., XV: 2–4., XV: 2.

Table 2Gifts and items exchanged between William of Rubruck and the camps of Sartaq and Batu.

William of Rubruck gives: William of Rubruck receives:To Coiac: a flagon of Muscat wine; gourmet biscuits

(vestments and a psalter are appropriated)From Coiac: an offering of milk

To Sartaq: wine, bread, fruit From Sartaq: khumizTo Batu: nothing From Batu: khumizWilliam of Rubruck runs out of items to give, and begins

pastoral care.From his ‘host’: a little food and shelter, given with ‘ill will’

From his guide: winter clothing

Source: WR, XV–XX.

A.J. Watson / Journal of Medieval History 37 (2011) 90–10196

his liturgical items and books for display. ‘We obeyed, loading up one wagon with the books and theliturgical items and another with bread (pane), wine and fruit. Then [Coaic] had all of the booksand vestments laid out. And standing around us were many Tartars, Saracens and Christians onhorseback [. . .] He asked whether I desired to give them all to his lord [Sartaq].’30 Rubruck was shockedat this suggestion, replying: ‘Lord, we beg that your master might deign to accept this bread, wineand fruit, not as a gift, since it is a scant offering, but as a blessing (pro benedictione).’31 When theparty was received by Sartaq, they were ordered to wear their finest vestments, and were in factreceived as priests, for they were not required to genuflect before Sartaq, a privilege only granted tomembers of religious orders.32 William of Rubruck then presented Sartaq with the letter fromLouis IX, and the Mongol prince examined the books and other items. The party was soon dismissedand learned the next day they were to be sent to Batu, Sartaq’s father. Rubruck’s observation isespecially interesting: ‘During the four days we were in Sartaq’s camp, we were not once providedwith something to eat and only a modest amount of comos (khumiz).’33 Here again is evidence thatRubruck’s status remained ambiguous, that he was regarded as an outsider, and that his attempts tonegotiate status by way of physical gifts had been unsuccessful (Table 2). A final exchange involvingCoiac and his brother, and Rubruck and his interpreter, illustrates this clearly. As Rubruck made finalpreparations to leave for Batu’s camp, Coiac informed him: ‘The two wagons which you led hereyesterday with the books and vestments you will leave behind with me, as my lord wishes to givethose things a closer look.’34 Rubruck, alarmed at the prospect of leaving his goods behind, suspectedboth the ‘grasping nature’ of Coiac and the disposition of his own translator, whom he feared wouldlike to ‘make a gift of everything’.35 In the ensuing discussion, Rubruck was required to leave behindthe illuminated psalter and his vestments: his ambiguous status has led to him being deprived of anyitems of value.

His audience with Sartaq complete, Rubruck was then sent onwards to meet Batu. De facto ruler ofwestern half of the Mongol empire, Batu was a grandson of Genghis Khan and the cousin of Mongke, inwhose bid for the great khanate he had provided critical support. En route, Rubruck’s party almoststarved and was forced to consume the remaining biscuits they had intended as gifts: ‘On that road wemight have died of starvation, if we had not been carrying with us a modest amount of biscuits.’36 Bythe time Rubruck’s party reached Batu, they had eaten the last of their food and arrived bearing

30 WR, XV: 5.31 WR, XV: 5.32 William of Rubruck, ed. Jackson, 43–4, and 117, note 1. Jackson has argued that at this point in the journey Rubruck was seenas a member of a religious order, and was later seen as an envoy, largely on the evidence that he was later required to genuflectbefore Batu and Mongke. Jackson also notes the confusion the Mongols had with regard to the purpose of Rubruck’s mission,and attributes this to Rubruck’s initial presentation of himself as an envoy and the formulaic description he gave to his missionwithout change at each new audience. An examination of the gifts given to Rubruck indicates that he indeed underwenta change in status, and that this ultimately was not only one of acceptance of the religious nature of his mission, but also from‘outsider’ to a potentially useful ‘insider’.33 WR, XVIII: 2.34 WR, XVI: 1.35 WR, XVI: 1–3.36 WR, XVIII: 3.

A.J. Watson / Journal of Medieval History 37 (2011) 90–101 97

nothing. Rubruck was required to genuflect before Batu, an indication that his priestly status was notrecognised; and it would appear that Batu found Rubruck’s attempts to proselytise him insulting andpresumptuous.37 During the audience with Batu, the party was given khumiz to drink, and was thenshown to lodgings under the care of another Mongol.38 After the audience, the party was apparentlykept at some distance from Batu’s court: Friar William does not record any further audiences with Batuduring the period d some six weeks d they remained with his camp, and Rubruck only mentionsseeing Batu and his entourage out riding at a distance.39 Of their Mongol host, Rubruck mentions thatwhile he ‘was obliged to provide us with lodgings, food and horses [. . .] since we did not have anythingto give him, he did this all with an ill will [. . .] My companion had such hunger he would say to menearly in tears, “I feel like I have never eaten.”’40 During this time, Batu apparently questioned othersabout Rubruck’s mission and the nature of the Franciscan order.41 Rubruck also began to undertake thepastoral care of Christians hemet in the camp, and received some additional sustenance for his party inreturn.42

Ultimately, a high-ranking Mongol sought out Rubruck and announced that he had been selected toguide Rubruck’s party onwards to the camp of the Great Khan Mongke. The Mongol took an inventoryof Rubruck’s clothing and provided the party with sheepskins and furs to keep them from freezing ontheir four-month journey across the steppes to Kharakhorum.

The road from Batu to Mongke: ministry as a gift

AsWilliam of Rubruck began the next phase of his journey tomeet with the great khan, hewaswithoutany of items he had originally intended as gifts. This would ordinarily have been seen as contrary toMongol custom, and initially it was clear to William of Rubruck that his high-born Mongol guideregarded him and his party poorly: ‘In the beginning our guide looked down on us, and viewed havingto lead such low persons with distaste.’43 With nothing to give but his pastoral skills as a friar, Williamfound that these were in fact held in high esteem by the Mongols, and that the regard in which he washeld began to rise. His Mongol guide also noticed this: realising that the men in his chargeweremonks,hewas consequently able to position them in terms ofMongol society. During this period of his journeyRubruck’s guide introduced his party to numerous descendants of Genghis Khan living on the steppesalong theway, and asked Rubruck to pray for them. The outward consequences of his vowof poverty, asa Franciscan, were noted by the Mongols he blessed, who ‘were amazed beyond measure that wewereunwilling to accept gold or silver or expensive garments’.44 Having been reduced to having nothing togive but himself, Rubruck discovered that his readiness to provide ministry without payment wasregarded among the Mongols as exceptional, and his status rose, as a manwielding spiritual power. AsJackson notes, ‘The respect accorded to shamans extended to holy men within other religiouscultures.’45 At that point, Rubruck’s gift became his ability to pray for the good fortune of his hosts, andthe quality of his physical gifts was suddenly no longer relevant. His status was beginning to shift fromthat of an outsider who was a drain on resources, to a potentially useful insider who could pray for thebenefit and survival of the group.

The journey to Kharakhorum remained an arduous one, and Rubruck himself noted that ‘the timesof famine and thirst, cold and fatigue cannot be enumerated.’46 Ultimately, however, his needs weremuch better taken care of than before. Travelling throughMongol lands, the party was fed according to

37 See William of Rubruck, ed. Jackson, 133, notes 1 and 2, and 282.38 WR, XIX: 6–9.39 WR, XX: 5.40 WR, XX: 2.41 WR, XX: 4.42 WR, XX: 3.43 WR, XXII: 2.44 WR, XXII: 2.45 Jackson, Mongols and the west, 45.46 WR, XXII: 1.

A.J. Watson / Journal of Medieval History 37 (2011) 90–10198

the Mongol fashion, with a steppe diet of mutton and broth, which Rubruck pronounced ‘mostrestoring’.47 Later during the journey, an episode occurred that confirmed Rubruck’s newfound status.As the party travelled through the Tarbaghatai range, it reached a pass beset by demons: Rubruckreports that these demons would swoop down and carry men off, sometimes leaving the dis-embowelled corpses of their victims astride their mount. Upon entering this area, Rubruck’s guideasked William to recite ‘some auspicious phrase that would put demons to flight’.48 Rubruck did this,and was subsequently asked to write out the paternoster and Credo in Deum on paper for the party towear as talismans against evil, which he duly did. To Rubruck, then, fell the role of protecting the smallgroup from the supernatural; his usefulness within Mongol society was thereby confirmed, and hisstatus as a holy manwith power akin to that of a Mongol shamanwas established.49 The party reachedMongke’s travelling camp, which was at that time about ten days’ journey short of Kharakhorum, a fewweeks later.50

Mongke, the great khan, and William of Rubruck’s gift of self

By the time Rubruck reachedMongke, he had developed a better understanding of how toworkwithinthe Mongol system. As he had no gifts to present during his first audience with Mongke, his addresstook a different direction: ‘We pray Christ [. . .] that he will grant him a good and long life [. . .] We haveno gold or silver or precious stones we can present you, only ourselves, which we present for theservice of God and for praying to God for you.’51 To this, Mongke replied: ‘We do not require gold orsilver fromyou.’ Rubruck again focused on his spiritual role, askingMongke, ‘not to take offence at whatI had said about gold and silver, since I had not said it on the grounds that he needed or desired thingslike this, but because we would gladly have honoured him with material as well as spiritual gifts.’Accepting this, Rubruck and his party were dismissed; they were informed that they were free toproceed to Kharakhorum where Mongke ‘will have you provided with what you need; if you want toremain here, you may, and shall have all the support you require.’52 Rubruck took his leave, wishingMongke ‘a good and long life’, and asking to remainwith the khan so that they might say their prayers‘for the khan’s life’.53

The comment by Mongke that he ‘does not require gold or silver’ is a telling one. Mongke usedsimilar language when William of Rubruck described an audience between Mongke and envoys fromthe Sultan of Turkia, who brought valuable gifts to the khan. In this exchange they were informed thatthe khan had no need of their gold and silver, but sought troops from the sultan.54 In this way, Rubruck,through committing himself and his service to the khan, presented a form of submission that wasacceptable to Mongol thinking: Mongke saw himself as de jure sovereign over Rubruck.55 With regardto interaction with the holy men of other cultures, Jackson notes ‘the understanding was that theywould pray for the imperial dynasty.’56 Rubruck obviously had no troops d or material gifts, for thatmatter d but he had a religious office to provide on behalf of the khan, and so he had offered Mongke

47 WR, XXII: 2.48 WR, XXVII: 3–4.49 See WR, XXIV–XXV for a more complete description of the practices of these shamans, as well as the use of talismans. Theuse of talismans among the Mongols and Tibetans is noted in William of Rubruck, ed. Jackson, 166, note 6. On the respectaccorded to the holy men of other cultures, particularly for their ability to intercede in providing material benefit in this life, seeJackson,Mongols and the west, 270–2; D.O. Morgan, The Mongols (Oxford, 1986), 44, describes the role of holy men as ‘concernedwith the material needs of the present life’; Devin deWeese, Islamization and native religion in the Golden Horde (University Park,PA, 1994), 58–9.50 WR, XXVIII: 20.51 WR, XXVIII: 16; Rubruck here again highlights his understanding of the high regard held by the Mongols for men of spiritualpower, particularly their ability to pray for the health and long life of the khan. See William of Rubruck, ed. Jackson, 179, note 2.52 WR, XXXVII: 18–20.53 WR, XXIX: 20.54 WR, XXXVI: 3.55 Jackson, Mongols and the west, 45–7; Igor de Rachewiltz, ‘Some remarks on the ideological foundations of Chingis Khan’sempire’, Papers on Far Eastern History, 7 (1973), 21–36; Voegelin, ‘Mongol orders of submission’, 378–413.56 Jackson, Mongols and the west, 45.

Table 3Religious rites performed by William of Rubruck and the accommodations he received.

William of Rubruck performs/gives: William of Rubruck receives:To Mongke: a blessing (XXVIII) From Mongke: wine, leave to remain at court, lodging, supplies

and provisions (XXVIII)To the guide: a rug left at Batu’s camp (XXIX:1) From Mongke: meat, broth, ale, bedding, fuel, fur coats

(XXIX: 16–18)To Mongke: singing psalms, a blessing,

presentation of the Bible (XXIX: 20)From Mongke’s wife: coins (refused), food and drink (XXIX:21–22)

To Mongke’s wife: blessings (XXIX: 21–22)To Mongke: a blessing (XXIX: 28) From Mongke’s ‘young wife’: food and drink (refused) (XXIX: 32)To Prince Baltu(?): a blessing (XXIX: 30) From Prince Baltu(?): drink (XXIX: 30)To Khatun Cota (Mongke’s second wife):

an exorcism/healing (XXIX: 38–42)From Khatun Cota: drink and coins (refused) (XXIX: 40)

To Mongke: prayers (XXX: 8–9) From Mongke: provisions (XXIX: 59; XXX: 5)To Christians in camp: mass and Easter Eucharist

(XXX:14); last rites (XXXI: 4–6)Before the court: a theological debate (XXXIII: 4–22)

Source: References to WR are given in brackets.

A.J. Watson / Journal of Medieval History 37 (2011) 90–101 99

all he could fitting for his role as a holy man in Mongol society. Bernhard Jussen and Egon Flaig haveboth argued that the ultimate offering one can give to a lord is oneself, that one owes loyalty toa sovereign, and as Flaig states, when given, ‘loyalty was no favor.’57 Further to that, as Jussen pointsout, ‘the lord demonstrated his power by having no regard for gifts.’58 Jussen further notes thegenerosity incumbent in the power of the lord: he cites the legend of Alexander the Great givinga soldier a city as a reward for service, not because the soldier deserved such a princely gift, but merelybecause Alexander ‘was worthy and powerful enough to give [. . .] so much’.59 Emphasising his ownsovereignty, Mongke chastised Rubruck for going to Sartaq first, instead of coming directly to him.Rubruck had apparently violated the Mongol chain of command in doing so, thereby contributing tothe confusion over his status. While Rubruck again used a variant of the explanation of his mission thathe had employed since entering Mongol territory, he was now seen principally as the member ofa religious order, and not as a beggarly ambassador.60 He also benefited from a piece of good fortune:the letter which Batu had sent on with him d which apparently contained a description of Rubruck’smission as primarily diplomaticdwas soon lost, freeing Friar William better to negotiate his status asa member of the religious class.61 From December until May 1254, Rubruck was given hospitality asa part of Mongke’s court. During this time, he participated in a number of religious rituals and wasincluded at a number of feasts, particularly by some of the Mongol wives,62 and he also receivedoccasional gifts (Table 3).63 He was included in religious feast days along with the holy men of otherfaiths at camp.64 Friar William was also evidently becoming more fluent with Mongol custom: he wasasked for, and granted easily, the gift of a rug for his departing guide.65

57 Egon Flaig, ‘Is loyalty a favor? Why gifts cannot oblige an emperor’, in: Negotiating the gift. Pre-modern figurations ofexchange, ed. G. Algazi, V. Groebner and B. Jussen (Gottingen, 2003), 29–61; Bernhard Jussen, ‘Religious discourses of the gift inthe middle ages: semantic evidences (second to twelfth centuries)’, in: Negotiating the gift, ed. Algazi, Groebner and Jussen, 173–92, especially 179.58 Jussen, ‘Religious discourses’, 183.59 Jussen, ‘Religious discourses’, 185.60 WR, XXVII: 16.61 WR, XXXIII: 8; XXVII: 11: Batu’s letter, and a translation Rubruck had made of the king’s letter, apparently gave theimpression that Louis IX was asking Sartaq for military assistance against the Saracens.62 WR, XXIX: 15–16, 22, 27, 32.63 WR, XXIX: 17–18.64 WR, XXIX: 15.65 WR, XXIX: 1.

A.J. Watson / Journal of Medieval History 37 (2011) 90–101100

In every instance, Rubruck declined payment, thereby self-consciously reinforcing his own status asa Franciscan. This was regarded by the Mongols as unusual, but virtuous, and in gaining their attentionin this way Rubruck achieved greater legitimacy.

The return journey

At his final audience with Mongke, Rubruck was offered gold, silver, and precious garments, which herefused. Mongke instead provided him with an escort of a guide and a servant; Rubruck’s servantadditionally carried with them a warrant to receive a sheep every four days, thus ensuring that therewould be food for the return journey.66 Before Rubruck departed, he was asked to convey a letter fromMongke to Louis IX, which he undertook to do.67 Mongke allowed William’s companion, Friar Bar-tholomew d who was in poor health and likely to die on the return journey d to stay among theMongols at camp, where he would be provided for.68 Mongke’s secretaries also noted the Franciscan’sunwillingness to accept gold or silver and offered different gifts instead: ‘They were moreover holdingthree vestments or tunics, and said to us: “You are notwilling to accept gold or silver and you have beenhere a long time praying for the khan. He requests each one of you accepts at least a simple garment, sothat you do not go away from him with nothing.” So we were much obliged to accept them out ofdeference to him, since they take it with ill favour when contempt is shown for their gifts.’69 AsRubruck and his party returned to the west across the steppes, they once again encountered Sartaq andhis entourage, travelling onwards to Kharakhorum.Meetingwith theMongol prince, Rubruck informedhim that he was now conveying a letter from the great khan to Louis IX; to which Sartaq replied thatthe will of the great khan was to be obeyed without question.70 Rubruck again met Coiac, whoundoubtedly noted the Franciscan’s apparent rise in status. As a result, Friar William was able torecover on request most of his belongings which had been appropriated.71 Rubruck continuedshrewdly to negotiateMongol custom: he left as gifts the vestments which had been restored to him byCoiac, and in return he was given two silk tunics: one for him, one for Louis IX.72 Upon reaching Batu’scamp, Rubruck was again treated respectfully and given a guide. Thus Rubruck, during his year-longtravels among the Mongols, had finally negotiated a position of acceptance. His status was now firmlyestablished as that of a priest and messenger of the great khan: he no longer lingered on the edges ofMongol society, subject to the confiscation of his possessions, but could be placed within the Mongolhierarchy, where he might expect fair treatment and reciprocity of favour. Despite his continuingmistrust of the retinue within Sartaq’s camp, a mistrust he grudgingly made a point of noting forposterity, his status had been elevated.

Conclusion

While reciprocal giving was practised among the Mongols of the thirteenth century, the examplesprovided by William of Rubruck’s Itinerarium demonstrate that to dismiss what took place as merereciprocity is to run the risk of cultural reductionism. Central to the Mongol concept of society was theimportance of reciprocal aid, but this was driven more by the requirements of group survival and thesharing of resources, and was also limited by and large to members of the group. Within this frame-work, however, social protocols are apparent which can be recognised as reciprocal. As William ofRubruck’s gift of a carpet to his departing guide demonstrates, gift giving and reciprocity was a part of

66 WR, XXXIV: 5; XXXVI: 21.67 WR, XXXIII: 9; XXXIV: 3; XXXVI: 5–13. Initially, Rubruck was asked to convey an ambassador, which he refused to do on thegrounds that he would be unable to guarantee an ambassador’s safety. A first draft of the letter referred to Rubruck and hisparty as ‘envoys’ (nuncii), which he requested be changed to ‘monks and priests’, an indication that while accepted as a priest,he was still also seen as a go-between.68 WR, XXXVI: 14.69 WR, XXXVI: 15.70 WR, XXXVII: 2.71 WR, XXXVII: 3–4.72 WR, XXXVII: 4.

A.J. Watson / Journal of Medieval History 37 (2011) 90–101 101

Mongol culture; but it is telling that this episode occurred after Rubruck had gained the acceptance ofhis guide. The concepts of status and belonging that giving implied ran on a different axis to those inmedieval Europe. The Christian concepts of charity andmoderation that proved so dominant in Europewere absent from the Mongol understanding of reciprocity, and some of William of Rubruck’s mostpointed criticisms of the Mongols hinged upon this difference. Within Mongol society the status of thegiver and receiver relative to the group were seen as much more important in determining the allo-cation of resources than any notion of pious charity or courtesy.

This difference does not imply that theMongol concept of reciprocity was limited to physical giving,as it clearly was not. The example of the Great Khan Mongke’s pronouncements to both William ofRubruck and the ambassadors from Turkia that ‘we do not require gold or silver’ indicates that giftsbeyond the material were acceptable and were in some cases more desirable. Mongke required fromthe ambassaors from Turkia the loyalty and support of their sultan. From Rubruck, he required prayersfor the success of his reign. In both cases, the sovereignty of Mongke was assumed and, at least in thecase of Rubruck, in return for prayers for the great khan, his party received hospitality. In this instancethere could be no direct correlation of one gift for another, as no material benefit accrued fromintercession and the performance of ritual. An expansive view of acceptable gifts, however, all with thesame basic aim at their core d namely the accrual of some benefit to the khan and his empire d

prevailed here.Finally, and in relation to Rubruck’s prayers for the khan, the Mongol view of the world included

negotiation with the supernatural in order to obtain physical benefit in this life. William of Rubruckfound that his ability to intercede with the divine for the benefit of the Mongols was considered a farmore valuable gift than the humble biscuits, wine and fruit he had intended to provide. It wasRubruck’s ‘gift of self’, in the form of his service and prayers for theMongols, that ultimately gained himacceptance within that society. Thus the example of William of Rubruck provides an interestingperspective on what may constitute a gift within cross-cultural contexts, and invites reflection uponand further comparison with other views of reciprocity.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Erica C.D. Hunter, Rosamond McKitterick, Lars Kjaer, Chris Woolgar and HannahMeyer, who all provided helpful suggestions and comments on an earlier version of this paper.

A. J. Watson is a Senior Teaching Fellow at the University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies. He is completingdoctoral work at the Faculty of History, University of Cambridge, and has an MDiv in Comparative Christian-Islamic Theologyfrom Harvard University. His doctoral thesis examines ways in which the medieval papacy, the Church of the East, and theMongol Il-Khanate negotiated religious and political authority in the decades following initial contact. He has published articlesand chapters on medieval Christian-Islamic relations, the Church of the East, the Mongols, and comparative theology.