the Speculum historiale of Vincent of Beauvais. The earlier dates to 1338–1340 and the later to about 1440. The latter was first brought to public attention in 1965 because it had been bound with the Vinland map, a modern forgery. It is part of the Beinecke collection at Yale University Library. Unlike the map, the Relation was generally accepted by scholars as authentic, although there were dissenters. In 2006, an earlier copy of the text in the Lucerne Central and University Library was brought to public attention (having been catalogued as early as 1959). The Lucerne manuscript (Latin MS P Msc 13.2°) is written in Gothic script. The scribe, Hugo de Tennach, was employed by Peter of Bebelnhein, a teacher in the cathedral of Basel and the prior of Saint Martin's Church in Colmar. He wrote out not only the Tartar Relation but all four volumes of the Speculum. These four manuscripts belonged to the abbey of Pairis until in 1420 they were pawned to the abbey of Saint Urban for 110 Rhenish guilders. The Relation is bound in the fourth volume, although it may once have been part of the third. The Yale manuscript (Beinecke MS 350A) is also associated with the Upper Rhineland and was probably made at Basel. The Lucerne manuscript is all parchment, while the Yale is a mix of parchment and paper. The Yale manuscript is written in bastard cursive. Colophons in the Lucerne manuscript give the title of the work as Hystoria Tartarorum and specify that it is not part of the Speculum historiale, which contains material on the Mongols derived from the Ystoria Mongalorum and the lost Historia Tartarorum of Simon of Saint-Quentin. The Yale manuscript may be a copy of the Lucerne, but it is more likely they both derive from the same exemplar. They certainly belong to the same manuscript family. The title Tartar Relation, coined by Painter for his 1965 edition, has stuck. Content The text of the Relation is almost identical at parts with the Ystoria Mongalorum, but it is not simply a version of Carpine's text. It differs in tone and purpose. Its portrayal of the Mongols (and the Jews) is far more negative. It also lacks the strategic purpose of the Ystoria, preferring to describe the Mongols as divine punishment on Christians. Religious references are pervasive. Gregory Werner proposes that the Relation is "an eschatological reinterpretation of