PRESTER
401
PRESTER
details in the letter, it is certain that the recipient
was no mythical personage. The pope may have
recognized him as the Presbyter of the legend, but
this is uncertain.
Historical FouND.'i.TiON of the Origin of the Lege.vd. — Otto von Freising does not mention the exact year of the battle between the Eastern conqueror and the Persian sultan; he only remarks that in 1145 it had taken place "ante non miiltosannos". On the other hand, there is found in the Annals of Admont (llSl), part of which, as far as 1141, are a continua- tion of Otto's chronicle, the following note: "Johannes presbyter rex Armenice et Indite cum duobus regibus fratribus Persarum et Medorum pugna\dt et vicit". Minute research has shown that in that year the Persian Sultan Sanjar was completely vanquished by a conqueror from the east, not very far from the an- cient Ecbatana. The Arabic historian Ibn-el-Athir (1160-1233) says that, in the year of the Hegira of 536 (1141), Sanjar, the most powerful of the Seljuk princes, had mortally offended his vas- sal the Shah of Kharezm. The latter called to his assistance Ku Ivhan, or Korkhan of China (Chinese, Yeliulasche), who had come in 1 1 22 from N^ort hern China at the head of a mighty army. Korkhan killed Sanjar and 100,000 of his men. The Arabic versions are substan- tially corroborated by other Asiatic historians of that epoch : by the Syrian writer .-Vbulfa- radsch (on account of his Jew- ish descent called Bar Hebra;u.s, 1226-86), by the Arabic Abul- feda (1273-1331), the Persian Mirkhond (1432-89) etc. It is not certain whether the Spanish Jew, Benjamin of Tudela, who travelled in Central Asia in 1171, refers to this event. If so, the hypothesis based on the researches of d'Avezac, Oppert, Zarncke, and Yule becomes a certainty, i. e. the land of this uncertain and shifting legend is the Kingdom of Karakhitai (1141-1218), founded in Cen- tral Asia by the priest -king of the tale. The disputed points are the name, the religion, and the priestly character of the mysterious personage.
Independently of the much earher work of d'Avezac, Oppert thinks that Ku-Khan, Korkhan or Corchan (Coirchan), as the East- Asian conqueror is
David and his host would offer their support to the
long-awaiting army of Frederick II. The enthusiasm
that this announcement created in the camp at Dami-
etta led to a premature outbreak of the Franks against
Cairo, and the defeat of the array. The historical
germ is easily discovered. King David is no other
than the Mongolian conqueror Jenghiz Ivlian, who at
this time with three legions pushed forward towards
the West, and in a most sanguinary battle annihilated
the power of Islam in Central Asia. He and many of
his successors were favourable to the Christians, and
averse to the Mohammedans; the Mongol Kingdom
also surpassed all Asiatic principalities by its display;
but the name of David given to the Eastern conqueror
still remains unexplained.
Third Stage. — The horrible slaughter committed by the Mongols soon proved that they were no pious pilgrims bound for the Holy Sepulchre, still less were they Christians. After a short time the legend as- sumed another form. It said that the Mongolians were the wild hordes mentioned in the Presbyter's letter to Manuel. They had risen up against their own ruler, King David, murdering both him and his father. 'The "Speculum his- toriale" of Vincent of Beauvais says : " In the year of our Lord 1202, after murdering their ruler [David] the Tatars set about destroying the people". Certain historical facts form the basis of this remarkable report. Bar Hebraeus mentions that in 1006 the Mongolian tribe of the Keriats in Upper .\sia had be- come Christians (Nestorians). According to the account of Rubruquis, the Franciscan, these Keriats were related to the Naymans, another Mon- golian .shepherd tribe, and paid tribute to their ruler Coirchan; they also were Nestorian Chris- tians, and in that vicinity were considered the countrymen of Prester John. The prince of the Keriats, Unc-Khan, was in 1202 completely subject to the superior power of Jenghiz Ivhan, who meanwhile was on the friendhest terms with his family, thus giving the Keriats a certain amount of independence. Marco Polo speaks of Unc-Khan as the "great prince who is called Prester John, the whole world speaking of his great power". In 1229 the celebrated mi.s.sion-
Prester John
print published in Paris about 1660
called in the chronicles, could easily have become ary John of Monte Corvino converted a Nestorian
Jorchan, Jochanan, or in Western parlance, John;
this name was then very popular, and was often given
to Christian and Mohammedan princes (Zarncke).
History knows nothing about the Christianity of
Yeliutasche. Yet it is clear that the league of the West
against the Mohammedans stirred up the oppressed
Christians on the borders of Tatar Asia to look for a
deliverer. The sacerdotal character of the legendary
king still offers an uasolved riddle.
Second St.\ge. — The political aspect of the legend again came forward in the thirteenth century. In November, 1219, Damietta was conquered by the crusaders. In the spring of 1221 the report was cir- culated among the victors that in the East, King David, either the son or nephew of the Presbyter, had placed himself at the head of three powerful armies, and was mo\"ing upon the Mohammedan countries. An Arabic prophecy foretold that when Easter fell on 3 April, the religion of Mohammed would be abolished. This occurred in 1222, and many expected that King XII.— 26
prince belonging to this tribe, who afterwards served
Ma.ss for him (Rex Gregorius de illuslri genere Magni
Regis qui dictus fuit Presbyter Johannes). And yet
neither he nor the other missionaries, who at this time
were trying to convert the Mongolian princes of Upper
Asia, paid much attention to the extravagant embel-
lishments of the legend. One of these missionaries,
Odoricus de Foro Julii, wrote "that not a hundredth
part of the things related of Prester John were true".
For centuries the Prince of the Keria was looked upon
as the Prester John of the legend. The papal librar-
ian Asaemani and the geographer Ritter justified this
scientific hj'pothesis by a mass of original documents.
It is undoubtedly true, that in this explanation of the
legend many of its peculiarities are more clearly
brought out; e. g. the sacerdotal character of the
hero; for according to Rubruquis, the Nestorians of
that locality were accustomed to dedicate to the
priesthood even the children in their cradles. The
main point, however, is still unexplained, namely, the
