Guillaume Adam (fl. 1316-18)

by Andrew Brooke (See Chinese translation)

Born around 1275, (probably) in the southwest of France, Guillaume Adam (also known as William Adam, and other alternative names) studied theology at the Dominican house at Condom. He must have travelled to Constantinople and further east, before composing the Tractatus in France. Richard (1983) has him travel to Persia, from Tabriz to Hormuz, whence to India, and then Ethiopia. He was made suffragan bishop for the first archbishop of Sultaniyeh, then bishop of Smyrna in about 1322. At the same time, he was appointed by Pope John XII as the second archbishop of Sultaniyeh, though whether he reached his bishopric is doubted. Returning to Avignon, and by 1324 appointed to the See of Antivari, he must have died before 1341. To him are attributed, besides the Tractatus, a sermon, a treatise by the title of Arbor caritatis, Livre de l’Estat du grand caan, and a pamphlet entitled Directorium ad passagium faciendum, which also advocates a crusade. However, the attribution of all of them above to Guillaume the author of the Tractatus has been disputed.

The Tractatus quomodo Sarraceni sunt expugnandi (Latin, 1316-18) is an exhortation addressed to the pope for the organisation of a new crusade, against the sultans of Egypt, a genre that flourished after the fall of Acre in 1291. Its tone is polemical (especially against the Arabs), a fact to be borne in mind when weighing the veracity of some of his claims. On the other hand, his style is also analytic—not very far from today’s idea of a ‘policy paper’—and personal. A worldly and well-travelled man, he argues that he is drawing his conclusions from personal experience. His two particular proposals are an alliance with the Ilkhanate against the Golden Horde and Egypt, and the throttling of Egyptian trade with India. As he sets out his case, of particular interest to the study of the Silk Road may be the following:

1. Description of the relations between the various Mongol khanates—the alliance between the Golden Horde and the Egyptians, against the Ilkhanate—as well as the military skirmishes and even recruitments of each (such as the Ilkhanate’s reliance on able Georgian troops).

2. The contention that large Greek captive populations exist in the Levant, Persia, and as far as India, and two personal anecdotes drawn allegedly from his interactions with them. The matter is related in the context of a case for invading Constantinople, and how the Greek population may receive the Catholics favourably.

3. The trade between Egypt and India, and the role of the Genoese in driving the demand. The manner in which the spices and other goods are carried through the Indian ocean to the strait of Aden, and up the Red Sea.

4. Therefore the details of a scheme for the blockade of the strait of Aden to deny Egypt the India trade. He prescribed it to be undertaken by Genoese, for their skilfulness, and financed by a licence given to them by the pope to sell indulgences for those excommunicated in Alexandria. Guillaume admits of the novelty of his proposals, but through theses and antitheses argues for its feasibility nonetheless. Due to the hostility of the ubiquitous merchants of Aden (who are said to carry out much of the trade between India and Egypt), the base of operation is suggested to be outside their sphere of influence, on the Persian gulf islands of Kish or Hormuz. The character of their inhabitants, and the manner, therefore, of approaching them are described.

In short, though the account is for the most part devoid of the particular details of a travelogue, it is a valuable testament to a Western churchman’s knowledge of the wider Middle East, its diplomatic and commercial movements.

The manuscript bears in its preface attribution by the ‘Archbishop of Soltaniah’, which must be the primary reason for its original attribution to Guillaume of Adam. Others, however, such as Yule and Moule, believe it to be the work of a Dominican by the name of John de Cora, a companion of John of Montecorvino, Archbishop of Peking.

The short account contains generic praises of the greatness of the Khan’s realm as well as some rather specific observations: from the Khan’s efficient postal system to the description of his paper money. The absence of grapes or olives, and the ubiquity and versatility of rice as a substitute. The prevalence of boathouses in which whole families are said to live, moving from one locale to another on great rivers. The Khan’s personal dispensation of justice, appearing in purple robes, as well as a description of the variety of silk worn by the inhabitants. The existence of a ‘Grand Trutius’, who must have been a Buddhist head-monk, favoured at all times in the company of the Khan; some beliefs of the Buddhists; and the manner of burial. The last few chapters describe the mission of Montecorvino, his many followers, and the Khan’s disposition toward the Christians, including much complaint about the influence and stubbornness of the Nestorians.